User talk:Tarc/Archive3: 2013-2014

2013
Happy New Years! If you're not shitfaced by now, you're doing it wrong. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bit early in the afternoon where I am, but I'll give it a try. Happy New Years to you, too.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Better Badges
I would like to say that I also do not think Better Badges should be deleted. It is a very notable institution and the page is very interesting. It should even be enhanced with photos of products. It should not matter if Joly MacFie is the founder of the business and also the only editor, as he is the one who would know the most about the institution. For these reasons I urge that it not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCrulees (talk • contribs) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, but why are you telling me this? I have not seen that deletion discussion until this moment. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ROFL
...at "sparkle vampire". Are you a fan of Cleolinda's? Killer Chihuahua 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The 15 Minute Movie person? I've read a few, yea.  She did a Harry Potter, Prisoner of Azkhaban one that boiled down every Buckbeak scene to one word; OMGWTFHORSEYBIRD.  I was in stitches. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, she is hilariously witty and brilliant. See My thoughts on Twilight, let me show you them Killer Chihuahua 14:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * THe funny part is in the individual book reviews, tho, from the links at the end of the page. Killer Chihuahua 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fort Hood terrorist attack
WSS recreated it again, so I sent it to Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 20. NW ( Talk ) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Tarc, I take it in "good faith" that you are not intentionally misrepresenting WP policies WP:NPOV, WP:DR, & WP:ANI. I replied to your post on Guerillero's Talk page:

"Guerillero, on 1/19/2013 on my WP:NPOV Administrator's noticeboard discussion you posted: "I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here." [3]

The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Wikipedia "policy."

Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy."

WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or "by editors' consensus."

Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "coequal" with WP:CONS, but "supreme" to it, & that WP:NPOV "cannot" be superseded "by editors' consensus." . Yet volunteer & Admin editors are attempting to do just that.

There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this "policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS.

Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance.

Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources,"on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 5:07 pm, 20 January 2013, last Sunday (1 day ago) (UTC−6)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013


 * You can't wikilawyer your way out of this. For example: The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."


 * That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads.


 * Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV.


 * I suggest you read my favorite summary of NPOV.
 * “The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win. Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.
 * WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table".
 * If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen.	” —Tarc (talk) 12:22 pm, 10 December 2012, Monday


 * You can post to your heart's desire but that doesn't change that you hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion. Guerillero|My Talk 5:33 pm, 20 January 2013


 * I thought I was on Guerillero's user page, not Tarc's page. But anyhow, you can't WP:LAW your way out of this by getting on a WP:SOAP soapbox.
 * WP:DR indicates: "This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor."
 * Guerillero's user page indicates: "My editing style..." "I change what I am focusing on editing..."


 * Therefore, it looks like Guerillero is an administrator/editor, & I have a dispute with him as an editor.
 * WP:DR indicates: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." "Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution."
 * WP:ANI indicates: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Guerillero is a "user."


 * Tarc, I do not see a cite for: "That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads."


 * Your "favorite summary of NPOV" reminds me of the Thanksgiving turkey: "Turkeys are highly vocal, and 'social tension' within the group can be monitored by the birds’ vocalisations."


 * I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV.


 * Exactly where are those quotes from on WP ? Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one.
 * However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view. This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."


 * Guerillero, please cite the support for your statement: "[Y]ou hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion." Because I do not see anywhere where I have not been open to WP:DR: This page in a nutshell: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages."
 * If administrators are unwilling to comply with WP:NPOV WP:DR WP:ANI I will be happy to proceed to: Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2013 Didymus Judas Thomas 1//22/2013


 * I'm not sure what Tarc will make of it, but I find the above a completely unreadable wall of text. Perhaps you could add some paragraph breaks or something? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The copy-pastes instead of diffs make it unwieldly...it's incomprehensible (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Tracked this down to User talk:Guerillero, where Guerillero quoted a post of mine from a discussion on Jimbo's talk page last month. This Didymus copy and pasted that whole thing, which is quite nicely-formatted, here but must have missed a character or something.  All of which stems from an argument at here.  So, following that long and winding road, Didymus is here because he doesn't like how I interpret NPOV. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2013
 * Who in their right mind copy/pastes a discussion like that? It makes it look like the discussion took place here instead of someone else ... and loses all of the attribution. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion taken to reformat. Thank you very much. 166.205.55.17 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013


 * Who in their right mind interjects themself into a discussion on another users' Talk page, posts statements in quotations as if they are citing/referencing WP policy; yet provides no cite/reference for those quotes, & has a picture of a dog on their User page with a note not to mess with the dog, & doesn't expect anyone like me who walks softly & carries a big stick, to poke the dog in order to find out if the dog has a bite as big as its bark. The top of the discussion clearly states that this discussion came from G's page, & if anyone thinks WP posted WP policies because they had nothing better to do, my suggestion would be that any individual who believes that should contact the top WP decision-making authority & let them know their 2 cents.  Thank you. 166.205.55.42 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1//22/2013
 * Well, anyone who knows that talkpages are not private, and is sincerely trying to help the project is always welcome to interject anywhere. I see no evidence that you have a big stick ... a big misunderstanding about Wikipedia and its policies, maybe. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that tarc -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, you didn't do anything wrong/bad. :) This guy is just going off on a bender because he didn't like you explaining policy to him. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

?
I don't know what I might have in common with Will Beback (besides an FA star). I just read the arbitration case, and if you're claiming that I'm like him in any way, that's either foolish or assholish (and unsupported). What I do know is that the whole "What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up" is no different from CoM's habitual whine about abusive admins toeing the liberal line. If you are correct, then no decisions are ever reached on the basis of arguments, and that's something I refuse to accept. I don't even get why you're pissing on me: I have defended Rob many times (though not always) in the past, and abstained from participating in the discussion. Your WOW comment basically just repeats the accusation he made ("long-standing enemies"), with at its bottom the unsupported claim that everyone here makes decisions based on personal connections, animosities, etc. It's the exact same claim made by a gun lover, and on the talk page of about every other blocked POV pusher. If you wish to express sympathy, you should find better words to do it in. Unless, of course, you wish to strengthen him in what got him banned. I, for one, would rather find a way to get him back in more than expressing some unhelpful "it's all their fault" sentiment. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't read too much into it; you compared me to a disgraced editor, I compared you to a disgraced admin. Will was the first name that popped to mind. Tarc (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but thiz is seriouz bizniz. Since I got the mop I've been seeing things a bit differently, and what I'll call the WOW line of argument now is a bit more serious. Besides, you know I liked CoM, and I am not yet a disgraced admin (I do kind of take that personally, since I haven't acted as an admin here, I didn't even vote). But it's a distraction also: rather than bitching at each other we should be figuring out a way to get him back in, maybe with restrictions--though that didn't seem to have helped the last time around (I don't know if his being mentored earlier did any good). Drmies (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a potshot, just as yours was. Stop over-analyzing. :) Tarc (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair use image help requested
Hey Tarc, I was scrolling through the WikiProject Alt-Rock rollcall and saw that you like to help out with fair use images. I have submitted R.E.M.'s "At My Most Beautiful" as a Good Article Nominee, and wanted to ask if you could go over the fair use rationale for the cover image to make sure it was up to code. The image was already in the article before I started expanding it, and I'm still somewhat foggy on the intricacies of figuring FUR stuff out. Anyway, if you can give it a look-over I'd much appreciate it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed the fair-use section to the template, as the old wording was rather sparse. Album art doesn't need to be discussed directly in the article in order to justify usage in an infobox like this, but on occasion there are some non-free purists that will grumble.  Last I recall though, their position (commentary == necessary) was not a consensus point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the look-over! WesleyDodds (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting edit comment.

 * (Just to be clear: I don't care one way or the other which order it appears in. But I am very interested in your edit summary comment.)  "as it is an American band, emphasis should be on domestic sales" - Why do you say that?  If it wasn't an American band, do you still feel the emphasis should be on domestic sales?  I'm looking forward to reading your response(s). Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"divorced from reality"
Don't suppose you could, could you? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sarek, you know me; that is dialing it back. :) Tarc (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. True, but still... :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your revert
I think your revert of my edit to my userpage was not in order. As you should have noticed, it does not contend that I am blocked, but that I was. That and all the reasons I gave in my revert of your revert. Int21h (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're being quite a spaz over all this, really, but it is good theatre at least. Keep it up. Tarc (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tut, never fear me: I am as vigilant as a cat to steal cream. Int21h (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Schwoogie?
Holy shit Batman, the stuff I ran into when I tried to look up that contribution of yours to my vocabulary. For all this criticism of the civility police (and I'm a critic myself), sometimes I'm glad we're not really in the real world here. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's awesome, it's like an Irish ED. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It was an idea
to make tarc to defend russavia. Please have a nice day. 76.126.174.12 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well Mbz, that is a rather interesting idea. Now, do you know what conclusion that we can draw from this experiment; you are on the bottom rung of the ladder, looking up at everyone else. Have a nice day. :) Tarc (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not know you want to continue the discussion, but if you'd like why not. I agree with you, tarc, I am on the bottom rung of the ladder, actually I am even below the bottom rung of the ladder (and still I am looking down at you and others not up), but there is a very interesting phenomena that I cannot understand :a wikipedian will defend a wikipedian no matter what. One could be a racists, a criminal, sell items on EBAY, but not mail them to his customers, whatever, but as long as one is a wikipedian one is defended by wikipedia and wikipedians. It is sooo... should I say "wikipedian" or maybe Kafkaesque that basically are the same things. You too have a nice day. I enjoyed our little conversation today.76.126.174.12 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is no one beneath you. And it had really nothing to do with defending any other Wikipedian, it simply had to do with denying your voice here.  You are persona non grata in the Wikimedia universe, and I intend to see that it stays that way.  However, if someday you decide to grow the fuck up, drop these neverending hysterics, and sincerely take advantage of WP:OFFER, then I will cheerfully say "welcome back".  But darlin, you got quite a bit of changin to do before that could ever happen. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarc, if you want to offend me, you'd not be able to do it (I do not take offense from wikipedians), and no worries, tarc, I would not like ever again to be a part of "the Wikimedia universe", this universe is all messed up, just like in Kafka's and Orwell's novels combined. The Wikipedia Universe is not for me. I got more than enough of something very similar to the Wikipedia Universe, when I lived in Soviet Union. By the way, when I left Soviet Union they took away my citizenship, not only mine, everybody even newborn babies who were leaving Soviet Union with Israeli visa automatically were loosing their citizenship. So as you see I used to be persona non grata in the communist Soviet Union too, and where is that Soviet Union now! I have never felt sorry about being persona non grata in the communist Soviet Union Soviet Union, and I assure I will never be sorry to be persona non grata in the Wikipedia Universe. I'd better be a part of the Universe,the Universe, where friendship matters, and where everybody is allowed to defend himself no matter what, and where a person rights are respected. Goodbye now. I wish you a happy editing in the Wikipedia universe . 76.126.174.12 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh Mbz, you sure sound like you need some cheering up. Have a cup of tea and listen to some nice music. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Homer Simpson?
? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. :) Tarc (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Brutsch for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Brutsch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadblade (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More bullying by the ultra-nationalists
here. LittleBen (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:RehabDoll.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:RehabDoll.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Glitch
I noticed a glitch on Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The page history and content don't add up. The history shows you redirected it but the page is still showing content. Is it just me with the glitch? Pass a Method  talk  22:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks fine on this end; I click the link there and it sends to the sub-topic in the father's article. Clear browser cache, maybe? Tarc (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement notification
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way
Tell yourself this story. We *did* put Filipacchi's bio in, and then she was properly diffused down to a non-gendered subcat thereof, 5 minutes later. If it helps to tell the story like that, fine, but the result is the same. We need to clear out American novelists in general, and we may as well start with hers - perhaps she will write a story about it and really explain to the world how diffusing categories work! (um, not likely). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We actually *don't* have to clear out American novelists. We could wait 5 years, the project would still be here.  You could categorize other areas non-stop in that period, so why not wait 5 years?--Milowent • hasspoken  01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * you may be right :) I may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic you're looking for... Actually I think We should go to ANI. My position is, I am acting in accord with the consensus, and diffusing a cat Is legitimate, but if ANI trouts me, i will oblige. i dont think women should be ghettoized either, and she isnt. heck, even hemingway is now In the 20th century cat. Another funnier option Would be to diffuse everyone to the by-century cats, and leave only Amanda in American Novelists. :) I've realized that the brand of American novelist is incredibly powerful - logic and reason don't really apply, it has become emotive and emotional and people have become attached. I feel a bit sorry for the 3000 novelists without this tag - are you guys going to bubble them up now, or is American novelists only for celebrities now ? in any case I have other things to do - have you seen my proposal for category intersections? Check Out  for a demo  --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Hi, during the Michael Brutsch AfD discussion I saw a number of users talk about merging or restructuring the article into another one, so I am opening up a discussion of such a merge here, if you are interested in participating. Thanks! Breadblade (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tarc
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Not really, but I mentioned something you said about InconvenientCritic. 75.147.18.214 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarc. You, 75.147.18.214, and I all know that, starved of attention, types like that will sooner or later retreat to their home under bridges.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia readership survey 2013
Hi. I'd like to hear your thoughts on English Wikipedia readership survey 2013, should you have any. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI
In an ANI discussion, you wrote  I directly addressed that point [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=554216909#In_the_News_abuse_by_Tariqabjotu there] Why do you think my explanation is invalid? Or do you agree with me that my concerns are legitimate? -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The closing admin judged that the oppose votes were crap. There's nothing wrong with that. Tarc (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. I understand that you did not read my comments, which is perfectly okay. I will not discuss this any further with you, since you clearly wish to leave this behind. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet another joker who presumes "you disagree with me" means "you didn't read what I said". How charming.  Your "he thus determined the quality of the arguments by comparing them against his own views" characterization was just plain wrong.  An athlete on an American pro team sport coming out as gay is newsworthy; anyone with a passing knowledge of this topic in American society and culture is aware of this basic and unarguable fact.  Tariqabjotu rightly discarded the opposed that were of the "not important" variety. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hey, do you suppose you could stop writing rude edit summaries about me? Kauffner (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop disrupting legitimate discussions with WP:POINTy nonsense, then. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you won't do the decent thing and apologize? Up to you. Kauffner (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One doesn't generally feel the need to apologize when one has committed no wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:IDF-Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:IDF-Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Sandstein‎
It was a proxy, I reported it after checking the IP, comes back as confirmed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not check every IP who edits the Wikipedia for such things, as I am not inherently paranoid. In the future, it would be best for Russavia to await confirmation and a block, then remove the comments.  "Shoot first and ask questions later" is not terribly appropriate for a collaborative editing environment. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon talk page
In reference to your changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boston_Marathon_bombings&action=history : Reverting your edits does not mean I'm in support of the comments you removed. Those comments are allowed if they're discussing changes to the talk page, which is what the page is for. See WP:TALKORocketLauncher2 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please strike uncivil comment
This was completely uncalled for. Calling me a misogynist because we disagree about an article title or because I diffused a category is going too far, *way* too far. Please strike it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SPADE. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an essay. No personal attacks is a policy. Please strike it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, I struck the offensive content as a personal attack. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar  16:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (....mutters something about Dudley Do-Right and wanders off...) Tarc (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Aggressive comments / edit summaries
Hi, I came here to ask you not to do this again, but I see from a quick scan of your talk page that this was not an isolated incident. I remind you that WP:CIVIL is a policy, and when incivility becomes disruptive to the project admins have been known to block. You do great work about the place, but if you can't help yourself from making these sorts of comments, I'd suggest perhaps having a go at some of the less stressful, but still very valuable tasks that are available on Wikipedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Fine. Though I was feeling legitimately badgered that day. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion
Left you a response at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies, please respond there when you have a moment. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Userboxes suck...
...which is why I don't use many myself, especially ones I created. However, this one that I made in honor and admiration for User:Malleus Fatuorum awhile back applies to you also, and may amuse you, if you ever feel the unlikely urge to add another one to your page. Feel free to revert this message. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's pretty funny. I did have the middle finger on my User talk:Tarc/Editnotice for awhile.  A furious little wiki-gnome had a shitfit though, and while it was amusing to watch him flail uselessly it became a time-consuming bore, so I removed it for the time being. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll full-protect it for you if you want to stick it back in. I see nothing really wrong with letting people know what they're in for if they try to engage you in argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm good though. :) People can just suck it up if I put it back. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on List of Wikipedia controversies
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies; since you have commented on this discussion, your input would be appreciated. Thank you, r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama discussion closed by involved editor.
This template should only be used by uninvolved editors, you are an active editor on this discussion page, please self revert your hat. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your post was pointy, disruptive, and in no way a good-faith attempt to initiate a discussion regarding the editing of the Obama article. I will close/hat/limit disruptive talk page discussions as needed. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * not relevant and inaccurate, Noam Chomsky is the 8th most cited source in the world, his opinion should certainly be included in the BLP of any person, and you are an involved editor which disqualifies you as a hatter. the proper place to take up disruptive behavior is the noticeboard. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted, but rejected. I have been involved in Obama-related discussions in the past, but that has slowed to a trickle as of late, and I had no involvement in this particular one. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * your recent post about the teleprompter would certainly make you an involved editor hatting the section titled orator. . please reread you will see your concerns the post is pointy are not part of the acceptable examples of when to close/remove a discussion/comments even if you were not involved. you claim of disruption should be addressed in the appropriate forum. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An apology of sorts
That "trenchant buffoon" thing? Well, I take it back.. 

"An editor in good standing"?? '''My God!! I've never been so insulted!!''' Seriously though, that was very nice of you and slightly unexepected! -- Mike


 * It just means you have yet to be corrupted. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Emailed you
Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

ED
Do feel free to participate in the discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica‎. There are multiple issues with the edit, and the situation is not at all identical to the Wikipediocracy‎ one (I don't even know what the issue is over there, admittedly). --Conti|✉ 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy
You are welcome to undo the collapsing if you believe that the remarks add to the discussion. Please do not remove my request for help or hat my remarks, again improperly closing an active discussion.

You called me a drama queen. Please avoid personal attacks. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  19:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Post This To The Review
I'm not the one to normally comment on drama or get myself noticed, especially on here. My duties include reverting article vandalism and warning users. As well as that I have rollback and reviewer priviliges which are used sparingly. Just now, I noticed that you posted about my edit on the forum and reverted it on the main article. While my sourcing may have not been right and that should be criticized, I feel that you didn't note on the site that I said in an edit summary that I would not challenge an editor's reasoning for removing my edits if need be.

Another reason I want to write this message is because I was the one who reported Selena, your long-absent moderator after a sockpuppet of her's posted on Jimbo's page back in January of 2012 which I think was the same time she returned to the Review for about 11 months and caused some havoc on there. That started the long unblock debate here that eventually ended with her unblocked for a little bit. The debate was intense. One persistent user calling for her to be unbanned that I forgot the name of and would not mention even if I did claimed that it was my fault that I reported it. He also was in an edit war trying to remove her from the banned user list. Selina herself, seemed like a nice person even if she was a little radical in her opinions. She denied being any other influential WR contributors (something ED had said before) and claimed that more standard e-mail accounts would be allowed to register soon, even though that never happened.

Sorry if I sound a little out of it too, I have a personal condition I would not like to mention here. --Thebirdlover (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with you, more to do with the dim bulb who initiated the WR thread in question. I'd like to see a WR-to-Wikipediocracy blurb as well, but we really can't until/unless it hits reliable source status. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit
Since you didn't include an edit summary, could you tell me what was wrong with my posting that you just reverted? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm, sorry, don't recall doing that at all. I was logged in via an iPad last night around that time, it was probably a mis-click...or mis-tap, as it were. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No big deal; I figured something like that must have happened. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Bugs--ANI--etc
Hey Tarc, please just let it be. No need to add fuel to a smoldering little fire. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I make no promises. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Well now, a pleasant surprise there. :) Thank you. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep. Well put. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar's footpaths again
Please check out Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar. I, as the lone delete advocate now, am a bit peeved that there seems to be a group effort (I'm not saying sockpuppets) to keep the article without really addressing the issues fairly. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Lastactionherocd.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lastactionherocd.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Final Warning
I will keep it short. The next time I see you insult and denigrate CoM I will block you. Your disagreements were 5 years ago, and yet you continue to foster a toxic environment. Stop or be blocked, the choice is yours. — Ched : ?  09:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. CoM was a problematic editor, and I have no qualms about referencing past problematic editors when discussing current ones...pointing out that "this guy now is as bad as that guy was then" is not a bad thing.  Also, that comment was 3 days ago, so you're a little late to the game.  If you have the balls to think you can make such a block stick then by all means stalk my edits looking for name-drops and take your best shot.  Be prepared to duck, though. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First, no - I don't stalk anyone's edits; not even my own. I'm well aware of how long ago it was Tarc, and I thought long and hard about whether or not to say anything at all.  Still, you've been making degrading comments for FIVE years - it's time to stop.  I know the two of you didn't see eye-to-eye, but CoM has served out his block; and it's time to drop the grudge.  CoM is not even active at this point.  Continuing to make disparaging comments about another person serves no useful or constructive purpose to the project.  Posts that are insulting to an editor not even extant appear to be petty and immature, and I know you're capable of rising above such behavior.  I've now asked/told you to stop - so the ball's in your court.  If it makes a difference, then I will add: "Please". — Ched :  ?  16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for some sort of promise or agreement today, then you're going to walk away disappointed. I do not foresee invoking the infamous moniker again anytime soon, inasmuch as I do not plan out what I have to say on a matter before actually saying it.  But if someday another ANI or similar situation arises regarding a user like this "ShadowCrow" who browbeats admin and user alike while howling about how unfairly he's treated, when it is clear to ALL who the actual aggressor is, then I just once again may say something along the lines of "hey, this reminds me of an editor I used to know...".  If you happen to notice such a comment and act upon it as you say you intent to act upon it...well then, we'll just see what unfolds from there.  My advice, bro; pick your battles wisely. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't engage in "battles" Tarc. I've made my concerns and requests known, so hopefully we won't find a need to cross swords.  — Ched :  ?  17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please dont bite the newcomers
Please dont be so quick to label new editors as "single purpose accounts" as you did in Articles for deletion/Pearmund Cellars. If you look at the editor's history you'll find that they have gone through the AFC process to create the article in question and have been working to improve it based on feedback. This isn't a "save my article at all costs" type arguing editor. It's a new editor that's trying. Please try to remember that we were all new once.--RadioFan (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SPADE. This user is just here to promote their business, that is obvious. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do have evidence to support that? If so please request that they be blocked.--RadioFan (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I'm posting here. Yes, Tarc's right. Google (part of) the username with Pearmund Cellars. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Then again, I could be wrong. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the Gorman name? There is a Gorman family associated with nearby Cardinal Point, but that is a different winery.  Please be more specific and if you have a problem here then be an adult and act on it.  Post a COI notice on the editor's page.  If it's blatant enough, ask that the user be blocked for spam.--RadioFan (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was. I guess it's a coincidence. Google gave me a blogspot match with both strings. I can't actually visit the blogspot site due to my location, so it was my mistake in assuming. And if "be an adult" was directed at me, no need to be mean. I was acting in good faith. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My dear Mr. Radiofan, I have an interest in seeing non-notable articles created in bad questionable faith. My comment at the AfD is the extent of my interest, which does not extend to actually pursuing a conflict-of-interest filing.  And yes, do not be mean to Ms. Frodesiak; she's like the good angel on my shoulder that tries to get me to play nice in the sandbox from time to time, despite my pitbull nature. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Radiofan: As I have explained to you twice, once on my talk page and once in the AFD, there is nothing denigrating or bitey about the term "single purpose account" when applied to an account that has a single purpose. Calling a spade a spade is not attacking the spade. It's just a neutral fact, mentioned for the benefit of the closing admin. And all of that account's activity, including at WP:AFC have had a single purpose: to publish information about one winery on Wikipedia.
 * Also, Tarc bites everybody in good faith. But there was no biting going on in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

AN
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleclown (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Weird
Sorry about the edit conflict thing at ANI. Not sure what happened there. When I saved my original edit, the edit conflict diff didn't show any text other than mine, so I figured the other was a null edit.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No prob, mediawiki isn't exactly cutting-edge, robust software. :) Tarc (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Need more scandals
Hey Tarc, I don't know if you're still keeping an eye on the Clinton articles or not, but please note, among my many fantastic contributions, two reverts of edits by JCHeverly. Maybe you can check in every now and then. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm--I know I tried to undo that tag on Presidency of Bill Clinton. Thanks. Maybe VisualEditor ate my revert. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tea, this guy is just generally going about things the wrong way. I reverted this one as well, as I think cleanup tags are for style issues, not content. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I left them a note. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey fucker, did you flip me a bird in your edit notice? Don't you know I'm an admin? Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin too, and I like that edit notice. It's been there a while. You only just noticed it? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Drmies is just joshing a bit. And actually I restored the finger only recently, left it out for awhile following the Koshvorlon caterwauling from a few months ago.  Honestly, to me it looks like a white-gloves Bugs Bunny hand, how anyone could get uppity over it is amusing. Tarc (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack
Thank you for striking out your personal attack. I appreciate the gesture, and look forward to interacting with you in the future. I have also restored a comment you removed, presumably in error. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Walking away from Wikipedia for a bit
Need to do my job for a bit now. Be back tonight most likely. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit of Edward Snowden
Have you read the articles about the World Passport and the World Service Authority? The World Service Authority is an organization existing since 1954, and numerous individuals were helped by its documents. And how can you say :world passports aren't real, when there is documentation showing that:1) they were recognized de jure by six states 2)recognized de facto by 180 states 3)there is documentation showing refugees and other individuals were helped by it. Moreover, the world passport receives its customary validity from the de jure and de facto recognition, as well as article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of human Rights, and numerous international treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DL1982 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Request for Deletion Review/Recategorise/Userfy or whatever to allow continued work on article Damon Matthew Wise
1) 39% of final comments were delete (minority) - most changed position after extensive editing; the majority were keep or at last userfy to allow further editing or at least Use Sandbox. 1) This has been represented giving all three options - a) reinstatement as met the basic requirements for a disability biography b) undeleted and userfy (or allow talk and article to be worked in talk, if dissimilar) or c) copy article and Use of Sandbox to further edit.

I and the rest of us will work with others to further improve the article, and have got permission to reproduce confirmation of Damon no longer having records of Irish Naturalisation to get a passport and other documentation to confirm history and events has been requested by him before the sudden death of his wife's niece. This is important, but considering the events currently not urgent.

AspieNo1 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradlley/Chelsea criminal thread
I don't necessarily agree that it was a miscarriage of justice, s/he was fairly tried and convicted of multiple felonies. Anyway, a number of sources include RT.com (quoting others), Washington Post (quoting Daniel Ellsburg), RealClearPolitics (quoting others), etc. I'm not interested in editing the article, but it's not hard to find.

I agree with you about what Josh was doing. I fear the disruption will continue unless an uninvolved admin steps up and implements the topic ban that the community appears to want. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   01:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think if he creates one more disruptive thread like that, that'll tip him over the edge to indef. Tarc (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Images in Plush (song)
There is more than one image, and I am afraid that I must remove promotional images. Shall you have no objections to removal of extraneous images? If you want to remove and delete them yourself, use db-g7. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine. 2007 was a different and looser Wiki-era, WP:NFCC-wise.  We were crazy kids then, uploading every available cover art, even using them in discography galleries.  I do kinda miss that one, though, they looked purdy. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment
Your comment- Well, quite frankly, not everyone subscribes to that notion, and it is quite wrong of you and a handful of others to push your ideology onto people who hold a different opinion on the matter. There is simply no actual person named "Chelsea Manning" here. What we have is a man named "Bradley Manning" who wants to be called by this other name (and awhile ago it was reportedly "Breanna") and referred to as "she". That is all. That is the reality that the article should reflect, the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Bradley Manning was a solider in the United States military. Bradley Manning was caught passing classified intel to unauthorized parties, convicted, and sentenced. After that, Bradley Manning decided to be called "Chelsea". That is how the flow of the article should be, these are all things that a man named Bradley Manning did, you can't just flick a switch and rewrite history to say "Chelsea Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act..." and so on. That just isn't historically accurate or truthful. When and if he legally changes his name, that is when the transition process of the article should begin. That all was simply way too soon. I want you to know that I agree with you 100%. Your comment was one of, if not the best on the talk page. I just wanted to let you know. BeckiGreen (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI case against you
WAT? - I'm not sure what's going on there, but the creator of that SPI was User:Fred newman. Must've riled him somewheres ... - A l is o n  ❤ 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, it's all about this guy and this ANI. There's some blogs out there by him and about him if one is so inclined to google his name, just a distasteful person all-around.  I particularly liked the attempts to up his internet footprint via the "pics of me with notable people" avenue. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Revolt
Were you looking for ?

So, I can foresee a little blow-back (angry dummy-spitting and crying) from you and the other opponents if Sue says the article will be called Chelsea, or more likely if she were to say we must enforce the Foundation's BLP resolution with greater rigor. But apart from whining or stomping off ... what? This isn't commons. There are a lot of people here who want respect for our BLP subjects to be improved. Even if all the support voters in the last RM were to flounce away, the project wouldn't miss a beat. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, AGK's statement there was rather laughable. As for the rest, it doesn't really matter because it'll never happen.  The WMF had to be dragged kicking and screaming into shit-canning Beta M from the project because most of the Commons crew were buddies with him.  They aren't going to step in to settle a content dispute that didn't go your way, no matter how much you yell for it. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, have you picked up an Encyclopedia Britannica lately? Their article is titled "Chelsea", but refers to him as "he" throughout.  When does your anti-Britannica crusade begin, Anthony?  More importantly, will there be t-shirts?  A fancy slogan?  Maybe a jaunty cap for donors? Tarc (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is unlikely. Do you know what's at the root of this hands-off approach to moral issues like Beta M and child protection? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Culpability. Say it's like a night watchman; if he's hired to do rounds throughout the night, checking the locks, closing the windows, arming the alarms and a burglar still gets through, he's in hot water for somehow still messing up.  But if right from the outset said watchman's job is to just peek in once a week, and the rest of the time it's up to whoever happens to be around (i.e. "unpaid volunteers") to take care of things, he can just shrug and say "well, I did my job." Tarc (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party
The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk 18:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A little more detail on gender
Hi,

In the Manning naming workshop you said "It is not a "denial of humanity" to not agree with and not honor what a transgender person wishes to be known as." I'd like to know a little more detail on what your personal position is, namely:


 * Do trans people get to assert their own gender identity? If not, why not?
 * When they do claim a particular identity, what obligation if any is there on (a) a person talking to them or (b) a person talking about them to comply with it?
 * (Just to head a potential response off at the pass: I don't mean absolute obligation, I mean what do you need to do to maintain a reasonable degree of civility?

Chris Smowton (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged, but not really interested in a tangent at this time. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a shame, because your position appears to be very aggressive; I was hoping for some basic common ground. Let me know if you change your mind. Chris Smowton (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been no aggression on my part. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is it that those who want to push a particular POV always accuse those who disagree with them of being aggressive? That was just over the top.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You explicitly don't accept trans identities -- I think that's quite aggressive towards trans people. They want be referred to in a particular way, you flatly refuse to comply, that's a pretty straightforward snub. Thus my question: why that refusal? What is it about their request that you find objectionable? Chris Smowton (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a wild guess that you are a product of an institution of higher education, or even presently be a member thereof. My experience with academia has been that those types of people aren't so much offended by being told that they're wrong (i.e. "It is not a 'denial of humanity'") as they are by the underlying assumption that a person could be right or wrong about anything.  I don't do grey areas, there are many things in life that really are simple black and white, but thy get muddled by people too afraid that taking a side means that the other side has to lose, and making people feel like they're losing is just mean.  There are many, many ideological conservatives in the United States that feel, very simply, that there is a clearly defined line between "male" and "female", and that one doesn't get to hop the fence just by saying so.  Those sorts of people have just as much of a place in this discussion as the transgendered, the agendered, and the "cissexist"-labeling people.  There is a person partaking in this debate who has the following passage on their blog;


 * i just think “The Abolition Of Gender” seems so abstract and nebulous and basically impossible and we should really be focused on FUCKING with gender and allowing gender to mean more than just male or female and allowing people to create their own gender and do gender in ways that make them happy and promote the respect of every gender. i think thats the important work that needs to be done right now


 * Why is that mindset allowed to take part in these discussions unchallenged, yet the other side of the spectrum is being actively shunned? Tarc (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's because of their allodoxaphobia.  GregJackP   Boomer!   19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Good guess, I have an degree, but it's a science degree which is irrelevant to the subject, so moving on: I get that you're a conservative and that you think gender is binary. I don't get why you feel the need to impress that on other people. If a trans person wants to be called female, you don't have to buy into their idea of gender to comply with their request, you only have to be polite. Because what do you lose? What skin off your nose if you be nice and let them choose their terms?
 * On the blog quote: out of interest, who wrote it, if that's not a secret? But its substance raises the same question: if they want to say gender can be complicated, what's it got to do with you? They're not going to fuck with your gender; you've got nothing to lose. Chris Smowton (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I can't, as I'd rather stay on the right side of WP:OUTING. As for the other question, I could flip that around easily enough; what skin is it off your nose if I don't? Tarc (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh, is it outing if it's not pejorative (to me)? Oh well, never mind. What skin off my nose, you ask? Easy: your position harms me, harms my friends. You've made it quite clear you oppose any concessions to trans people on Wiki, including pronouns and names. This kind of outright rejection of their identity is the bread and butter of the day-to-day suffering of trans people. Their situation is that they perceive that they have an internal identity that very few people are willing to recognise or extend common courtesy, and it is commonplace for governments, businesses, and private citizens all to enforce the adoption of an identity with which they don't identify. Depression and suicide often follows (e.g. ). I don't care much if you personally decide you're unwilling to be courteous and publically comply with their identity, whatever you believe internally, but your attempts to push Wikipedia, a very public and visible organisation, away from trans recognition is harmful. So I'll flip your question back around: that's what trans people stand to lose if you have your way, what do you lose if you let them have their ball? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@ - Please don't label me,, or tell either of us what our beliefs are. First, I'm not conservative as far as social issues, I'm libertarian. I don't have a clue what Tarc is, nor is it relevant. Second, gender is binary, but not in the way that you think. Just as a homosexual has no choice on his or her sexuality, neither does a transgendered individual. That does not, however, mean that there are an infinite number of genders, there are not, there are only two.

I also have a degree and it is relevant to the field (sociology). I don't have a problem with addressing them as they wish in public, in correspondence, etc. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Why do you feel the need to attack someone who holds a different view than you do? What gives you the authority or the ability to silence free speech and to denigrate those who hold a different opinion than you do? I'm here to create an encyclopedia, to compile knowledge that has already been reported on by reliable sources, not to promote an agenda. And if that means that someone's feelings are hurt, well, I'm sorry, but I'm not here to hold hands and sing kumbala, unless it is first reported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Greg, I wasn't talking to you at all, since you just seemed to be making sarcastic remarks that didn't particularly demand a response. Tarc described himself as an ideological conservative, and he didn't object to my repeating the "conservative" part of that. Regardless, can you justify your blithe assertion that there are only two genders, at all, or are you just going to assert that like it's self-evident?
 * "Silence free speech": utter nonsense. Do you see Tarc being silent? I disagree with Tarc, I'm arguing with him. If that's silencing free speech then so is 99% of conversation on Wiki.
 * And finally, priorities. Making an encyclopaedia: great! Your encyclopaedia currently has, I think, a big problem with how it addresses its subjects and editors. Clearly you have no enthusiasm to ensure someone's feelings aren't hurt, but you're currently displaying a positive desire to ensure their feelings are hurt. If I have my way and trans people get some basic courtesy written into policy, they're happier and your encyclopaedia suffers not a jot. Oh noooo, I typed "John Doe" and it redirected to "Jane Doe"! But you don't care, do you? You're not Jane, you're not her friend, what's it to you whether she's using John or Jane? By contrast if you have your way and Wiki treats trans naming using the full blunt force of COMMONNAME, most readers see nothing remarkable, but each trans editor, each trans reader that comes by gets the privilege of being informed for the hundredth time that day that they don't get to choose; that people will ride rough-shod over them and feel good about it. Do you see how one of these is strictly more harmful than the other? Given the choice, why favour the harmful option when for your side, nothing is at stake? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning Workshop Comment Removed
Note that I have removed 1 single comment from both you and Smowton as Case Clerk; I think your reply to him is excessively aggressive, however, I deemed that his comment is the one that led you to reply thus. Considering the fact that both of you are arguing the same points over and over, there's a point where it's best to just stop. Note that further comment threads like this may lead to blocks applied, as the text (in the red box) at the top of the Workshop page states.

Case Clerk of the Manning case, - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's ok. Like my best friend in college said, "don't sweat the petty things, when you could instead be petting the sweaty things". Tarc (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Sue Gardner
Excuse me? – Smyth\talk 10:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoops, sorry, just a misclick. That rollback link is easy to hit sometimes. Tarc (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. – Smyth\talk 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

What's it called?
When someone says "thank you for proving my point" when nothing was actually proved? There has to be some Latin fallacy describing this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Argumentum ad douchebagium". Tarc (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo comment
I thought your response to the IP (yes, we all know who it is) was rather rude. While I think he has made his own bed, I don't think it helps to engage in name-calling. (Complicated by the fact that if Manuel is healthy, the Bills might be a decent team). Would you consider refactoring it?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not name-calling, just a simple, snarky analogy. You can see where he stands by this posted-and-removed comment; just another bitter whiner that like a bad dog needs a rhetorical rolled-up newspaper to the nose once in awhile.   And sorry, y'all haven't fielded a decent team since they benched Flutie before the Music City Miracle. :) Tarc (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, you and I disagree on how to treat contributors, even when they are whining. You might be right.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

fish

 * Actually, this deserves something more than a trout. I hereby also admonish you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ugh, removed. If there's one thing I hate is that insipid "trouting" thing, I think that's bullet point #4 to add to the page edit notice.  So, admonish away, but it may be helpful to say what for specifically.  If you're going to claim WP:POINT, you'd have to demonstrate what was actually disrupted.  I was a minor player in the grand scheme of All Things Manning. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds an awefull lot like "others were behaving much worse" - which is true, but that doesn't mean you didn't waste a whole lot of peoples time. When your behaviour gets to the point you become part of an ArbCom case, and there is a proposed remedy to topic ban you, and you don't think that all that circus amounts to Wikipedia being disrupted, we have very different ideas of disruption. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Potayto, potahto. At the end of the day, I'd rather be sanctioned for something substantive (highlighting the project's dysfunction in dealing with civil yet biased editors) than trivial (the piddly civility warnings that litter my talk page over the years). Tarc (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I name-dropped. I just didn't understand why no one was talking about it. When I realized no one seemed to know, I cautiously backed out of the room, knowing it would be better all around if you were the one to chose to notify or not. I obviously feel personally griefed, but I don't begrudge; you're being interesting. Going out bigger rather than smaller is pretty Manning-esque, at least. __Elaqueate (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You absolutely must be kidding me
If this is some sort of double-bluff trolling then I salute you for your Byzantine madness.

If not, then I've got to know: that bit where we both got warned by Penwhale: part of the act, or were you "angry in character," as it were? I know I was pretty furious with you, for... what are the right words... ah yes, making a carefully-parsed and neutrally-worded argument denying the rights of a transgendered person.

Assuming again that your statement is sincere (an odd assumption regarding a person describing a campaign of deceit,) what is the answer? How is the community to deal with people like your character, who peddle utterly objectionable opinions with a courteous smile? Chris Smowton (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the greater point. A majority of ArbCom is currently voting that his behavior was generally understandable and reasonable and not that much of a disruption. I wonder how they can now sanction him for that, when they wouldn't sanction admitted and calculatedly discriminatory language? This is what they call "a pickle". Which infraction will turn out to be more objectionable? If they admit he used discriminatory speech, they have to admit they gave a clear pass for it. I, of course, thought it stunk) End self-congratulations, __Elaqueate (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. So did your remark earlier indicate you knew it was an act? If so you could've saved me much ire by dropping me a hint! :) Chris Smowton (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Problematic", "insensitive", "inflammatory and offensive", and "unacceptable" is a far cry from "generally understandable and reasonable". (Proposed decision#Discriminatory speech by Tarc.) -- ToE 01:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Three of the five of those are picked from the minority side, not the majority I was speaking of. The rest speak to an isolated statement treated as a regrettable exception to speech that is otherwise seen as reasonable and non-discriminatory. So I don't see it as a far cry. If the majority had actually said "inflammatory and offensive", and "unacceptable" then I wouldn't see an issue here. But they didn't. __Elaqueate (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the "minority" you speak of is an abstention, not support of that FoF. -- ToE 12:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, opposition was the majority, and abstaining and supporting were minority positions. The commentary was still described as mostly reasonable and not actionable, with more votes expressing agreement with that sentiment. I'm not saying there was no sentiment that the speech was discriminatory. But it was in the clear minority, no quotes. __Elaqueate (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Most everything said in these discussions should be considered delivered under dramatis personæ, I'm afraid. I am genuinely a rather churlish, oftentimes quick-tempered, and honestly somewhat of the proverbial WP:DICK at times...read through the talk page and archives here sometimes, I've had some fun moments over the years.  So it wasn't a big deal to tap into some of that while affecting a right-wing-ish argument on the topic.  Most of what I said to Gorand though was pretty on-the-mark, as IMO he really did a great disservice to that side of the argument.


 * I'm not a rah-rah advocate of transgenderism or any of that, for the record. For me it's like same-sex marriage; I am comfortably heterosexual and if others who aren't want to get married, by all means go for it.  If Bradley feels more comfortable in life as Chelsea, hey, knock yourself out.


 * As for what Arbcom can or will do...largely out of my hands. As a wise man once said, "the sun will rise, the sun will set, and I will have lunch". Tarc (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A wise man once said, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." -- ToE 01:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed re: Josh. One more question: if you page up the way you'll find you + Greg arguing with me -- was Greg your accomplice there or a coincidence? Chris Smowton (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No accomplices, no. There was only one person I told of this beforehand, but that person is not a Wikipedia editor per se, and had nothing to do with this. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Personal bias" at ArbCom? Surely you jest.  Have you not read WP:Infallibility?  Anyway, Tarc, I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish, but whatever works for you.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Dunno if you've seen this yet, but it appears you have successfully convinced NYB you are a bad person Chris Smowton (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (FWIW I disagree that the point about caustic vs. civil anti-trans sentiment is obscure; the committee has consistently declined to engage it, however) Chris Smowton (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See, now they are starting to get into quite a conundrum. I make a statement XYZ, a complaint is filed, and the Arbs look at it and say "XYZ is not equal to discriminatory language".  But then I come out and say "but I meant XYZ to be discriminatory", so now they (or at least one so far) has now altered the valuation of my statement based on my professed intent.  The thing is, the words didn't change from one situation to the next.  XYZ still == XYZ.  NYB is now placing more of an emphasis on intent than on his own interpretation of a person's words, which will prove very interesting for future Arbitration cases.  Perhaps a flipside will be a future case subject accused of discrimination, who can say "if you were offended by what I say, that's not my problem, since I didn't intend to offend you.  Precedent in this case that the speaker's intent counts more than outside interpretation can be used to get that future person off the hook. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You have missed the point of my comments more-or-less altogether. Although I didn't particularly appreciate how you expressed yourself in the Manning debate, in the interests of wide-ranging debate (which I would have thought you favored), I am reluctant to sanction anyone for a good-faith expression of their opinion in a Wikipedia controversy, even if I think their rhetoric is over-the-top or they should have used different words. However, I don't see value to being provocative on purpose simply for the fun of seeing what happens, and/or trolling contributors on another website. Intent does matter, and where the intent is to be a pain or a troll, the community and the arbitrators are free to react accordingly. Or to be more clear, obviously there are cases where intent doesn't matter (because the conduct is obviously outrageous and impermissible no matter what the intent was), there are cases where intent doesn't matter (because the conduct is fine), and then there are intermediate cases where a good-faith editor gets a pass and an admitted bad-faith editor doesn't. You said in your statement that you were trying to find the middle ground of ambiguous words, and I suppose in that you succeeded. You also wasted a substantial amount of the community's and the arbitrators' time, and further escalated what already was a complex and fraught situation.

I don't think you are "a bad person," but I think you behaved very poorly in this instance. The only reason I haven't proposed a remedy against you in the arbitration case is that the case is close to closing and I don't want to delay it with further discussion of your ridiculous behavior. You are instructed never to do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever words you need to comfort yourself with are fine with me, bro. Vigilant hit the nail on your head pretty well by pointing out Lèse-majesté the other day. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting Abigail just now was pretty unclassy. If you're going to pull this kind of stunt, at least own the blowback. Chris Smowton (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Blowback's fine, if it is done without simpering & whining. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You threw the concerns and comfort of people under the bus to make a point about how those concerns are ignored. I get that. But showing dismissal of those concerns afterwards undercuts the sincerity of your point. It's like discretely wearing a swastika armband to high school to prove the teachers don't care about anti-Semitism, but still saying people offended by a swastika armband are too sensitive. You're playing both sides. __Elaqueate (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If they can come here and not wrap-up a point with a parting "fuck you", then they are more than welcome. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, noes!!!
Now Kirill has to change his vote, since he doesn't want to be Politically Wrong on such an important matter as separating the Righteous from the Wicked...

Your after-the-fact rationalization of your trolling isn't really logically consistent; you should probably spend more time on that. Better yet, just own up that you were trolling for shits and giggles and had a good time, which is probably closer to the truth than your explanation.

xoxo,

Randy from Boise /// Carrite (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When I want to have a good time, I login to my blood-elf paladin and go raiding in the Siege of Orgrimmar, or curb-stomp n00bs in Strand of the Ancients with my Forsaken rogue. The Wikipedia is not my shits n giggles forum. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
He does have entries on various other language versions. I am not interested in starting an article, but there are plenty of sources if anyone else wants to. Kohs was not interesting to me as a critic of Wikipedia – not that it can't use criticism – but as a pioneer of the paid editing industry. I suppose paid editing would have happened without him. Anyway, it seems Kohs really did not want an article after all, and is not exactly a major public figure, so that is done with. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

New section
I have no clue under what heading to put this so I picked a random section and picked edit. Looks like you're going to be topic banned for something that I feel is stupid. More than one of the people being topic banned (or put up for them) are those who used perfectly acceptable analogies to attempt to show their viewpoints. If anything, more of the Gerard restrictions should be happening - as advocacy is much more detrimental than the use of some analogies or inventive ways to explain their viewpoints.Now, onto you. I find that your experiment does show quite a bit about Wikipedia. Thanks. You don't deserve the backlash for it. ~ Charmlet -talk- 23:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I unwatched the proposed decision page a few days ago; as there's no sense in watching a train-wreck go in slow motion when the end result is a given.  What this Arbitration Committee has shown is that they are buried so ass-deep in the malaise of Wikipedia bureaucracy that they are unable to evaluate real-world situations and react appropriately.  I had a professor or two back in my day that taught from the same notes...literally, the same pieces of paper...that they taught with the day they got tenure.  No adaptation, no updating, no relevance to the audience.  Arbcom consults the Book of Wiki-Rules and says that as long as you stick to the letter of the wiki-law, you can actually express a prejudiced opinion and be a welcome member of the project.  Of course there were transgender advocates that went much, much too far in pushing their point-of-view, but when they ran up against a roadblock of rules-watchers, some frustration was to be expected.  IMO only Gorand went too far, no one else from that side should be sanctioned at all.


 * And I had no involvement in this topic before now, so if they really hand down a topic ban, it is more indicative of the fact that they just really don't know what to do anymore. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I've seen way too many comments that are advocating for transgender "political correctness" (for lack of a better term) that have gone un-sanctioned. I have to believe, sadly, that this is due, in part, to the administrators on the Arbitration Committee (two in particular) who are using this ArbCom case to advocate for something they believe in. This is very apparent in these two's votes and the proposals submitted by each.Personally, you deserve a 30 second block for your POINT behavior. However, since we aren't supposed to give a shit when it is with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and aren't supposed to take actions when we have personal beliefs, you should be praised. If for nothing else, because I could (if there weren't extenuating factors) go and say with evidence that the Arbitration Committee has multiple corrupt, politically advocating members.The only thing in this case that is actually a WP:ADVOCACY upholdance is the ban of one administrator from the topic area he is clearly too involved to participate neutrally in. Sadly, the proposed decision to be implemented when a clerk gets to it is nowhere near far enough, and actually condones certain advocates who just didn't have administrator tools to use in the discussion.Lastly, your "lipstick on a pig" comment was neither offensive nor discriminatory. It was making a comparison of two situations. Just like when you say that L'Origine du monde was beating the dead horse wrt Reaper Eternal - were we calling Reaper a horse? Oh noes, we must be discriminating against Reaper! Absurd that it'd ever be called that. ~ Charmlet -talk- 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See, there's different levels of advocacy, and not all of it is bad. It's ok for LGBT activists to come here and argue that were not taking the BLP concerns of transgender subjects seriously.  For example, Phil Sandifer was actually pretty much spot-on in everything he said during these debates, and doesn't deserve even the wrist-slap that Arbcom passed.  Sue Gardner was right as well, though IMO extra care should have been taken by so prominent a WMF persona stepping into the fray.


 * As a parting shot, the 11th-hour caterwauling by dheyward and Obiwan on the Proposed Decision talk page at the moment is especially precious. The righteous indignation of wiki-nerds warms the cockles of my heart.  If those types of editors are pissed off following this, then I did my job extra-well. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Advocating for following of policy is appropriate - when policy isn't being followed. After the closing admins of a community discussion found that it was not a BLP violation at one name, all advocacy of that position should have stopped. Further advocacy is pointy and is disruptive advocacy.On the other hand, you have Gerard and others who clearly commented with only the purpose of pushing their political agenda into the topic. That is unacceptable. Period, full stop. An editor who tries to force their idea of political correctness or otherwise their political agenda on others or on Wikipedia should not be allowed to edit in those topic areas. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well David Gerard has a long and tangled history in this project, he should have been given the boot ages ago, not just for this. I'd say you could look at some of his history here, but there are very large and important chunks that have long been oversighted.  The old Wikipedia Review, which pretty much only exists as an archive and museum, should still have some good bits about him. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You know what I do for a living, think I have time to browse a forum? Special:EmailUser/Charmlet is there for links if you'd like. But I know enough about his history to say that he is WP:NOTHERE. Obviously, and blatantly. Finally, how ArbCom is condoning canvassing on twitter from at least one or two administrators is incredible (in the sense of in-credible, as in, not credible). This whole mess has shown that the current Arbitration Committee is failing to do it's job as it should. Specifically a few members. I'd say fire the few that are, in all frankness, advocating themselves, but there's no room after the best ones resigned. BTW, I would comment on that-which-shall-not-be-named/linked, but I'm still in the hole. I agree with quite a bit you've said there and on the talkpage for the PD tho. ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I don't know if you were responding to my posts on User_talk:Alison or WP:ANI, but you might want to add a note on both. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just did comment at ANI, yea. Grundle will persist for quite awhile, he has...fixation issues, shall we say. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 2)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 3)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 4)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 5)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
 * 6)  is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see ).
 * 7)  is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
 * 8) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning.  Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
 * 9) All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Do not make personal attacks, such as the ones you made here. While neither of these previous editors are welcome on Wikipedia, that does not give you the right to make allegations about them on this project. You have just been warned about your inappropriate behaviour on this project, and should consider this your final warning. Risker (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack to point out something that actually happened, I'm afraid. I've already notified WMF Legal of the situation, so this is all quite above your dear little head, Risker.  Your "warning" is null and void. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Patronizing me is not helping your cause, Tarc. You don't get to make personal attacks on this website. WMF Legal isn't going to defend you in doing so. Keep your disputes off-wiki. Risker (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tarc. No patronizing please--of Risker or of Carrite (in the edit summary). Come on. We go way back and I don't want anyone (including me) to block you, but this is uncalled for. Please. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does involve an on-wiki situation; harassment regarding a revert I made to an article almost a year ago. Say if this involved someone else...someone who you didn't have a petty, vindictive attitude towards...and this person said "Hi Risker, in accordance to WP:EL, I once removed a link to a non-notable website from a Wikipedia article, but the owner of that non-notable website is harassing me unless I restore it."   You response would be...? Tarc (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, please click on my user page
My misdeeds have caught up, and it's time to pay the piper. I offer a general apology to anyone who has felt slighted over the years who I did not name. The named ones got the doozies, and I'd be here til XMas listing everyone. Namaste. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * quick note - do you mean angel vs angle? Feel free to delete this either way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks, and sorry to you as well for things said back during those name debates. Quite uncalled-for. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I speak only for myself, Tarc, but thank you for having the courage to put your hand up here. Risker (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Kudos, Tarc - or may I call you Jay? This is a big thing of you to do. And serious respect for joining the list of editors who don't hide behind a screen name. —  Scott  •  talk  12:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to see that you're a fellow New Englander and Red Sox fan. Hope you're enjoying the series as much as I am! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Props to you for your message on your user page. Would you like to work on an article together? -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Best wishes. Edison (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Message for you
There is a message for you at User talk:Grundle2600 38uy56GH (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your advice on Elf or Jinn review discussion page. Further guidance would be awaited.Nannadeem (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Courtney Love
The article Courtney Love that you worked on has been listed as a good article; see Talk:Courtney Love for comments about the article. Well done!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?
What do you think of this? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Been off a few days, will take a look. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Del Rev
If you want to argue that "nominations" should betaken out of the guideline, I think there would be support for it. I don;t know enough about the area to comment on it myself. Alternatively, it might be interesting to have a discussion on just what nomination actually show notability in general -- Nobel, Booker, Academy Awards. What other? We've opposed each other on a great many things, but I think we have supported the same view a few times.

BTW, your deception puzzled me quite a bit. The persona you were adopting didn't seem  consistent with the general approach of the past. I though, what didn't I understand about the guy? It hadn't occurred to me that you'd be doing what you did, though it should have.

In a much milder way, in my first year here I tried the recommended arguing for the enemy a few times, and found that it was not the least appreciated. I remember some but not all of the isms I was thought to adopt. I haven't done it since; like sarcasm, I found it's too dangerous here, where people are not known for subtlety.  DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yea, that whole experience kinda blew up, in several ways. Just gotta move on I guess, I think bygones will be bygones eventually.   As for Pornbio, there have been attempts to neuter it in the past with little success, it always runs up against the "not censored!" regurgitation.  I'm all for anti-censorship in some cases, from the Virgin Killer album over to Muhammad images, but it is irritating when it is thrown up as a defense without a shred of forethought.  I recall you've voiced disdain for Sexuality in Star Trek in the past, but when you have a crossover of fandom nerds + libertarian anti-censorship types, it is hard to make much headway. Tarc (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Olivvvvver (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, hi. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your 'friend'
... who'd like to 'shit' on you ... is this guy. Just so's you know - A l is o n  ❤ 05:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I never get nice friends. Tarc (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some people actually like that - he may just have been trying to be nice! - A l is o n  ❤ 05:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

AfD help
Sorry for coming out of the blue here, but I wanted an opinion on an AfD I recently opened up (here). It looked like a typical WP: BLP1E, WP: NOTNEWS article, but I may be wrong. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at it when you get the chance. Regards. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're gonna tank on that one, tbh. The subject is just a person, receiving some coverage for her normal business activities; WP:BLP1E was designed to protect the project from otherwise non-notable people who capture a blaze of headlines because of some out-of-the-ordinary situation.  A woman who tumbles into a mall fountain because she was too busy texting, a flight attendant who ragequits his job by swearing at the passengers and storming off, or a news reporter who suffers a stroke/aneurysm on-air, etc... (all of these are real examples of past BLP1E deletion discussions btw).  With this person there's no event, so it's not an applicable criteria for deletion.  Your only possible angle is to read through the WP:GNG and WP:N pages and see if she fails the threshold for notability, which is generally that one has to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources.  The Vogue spread is a big #1, Fast Company and Refinery29 are not well-known but are probably enough so to count towards notability. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. I would probably go the WP: GNG path if not for the Vogue citation. I'll just let it run its course then. Thanks for the advice, it was helpful. Admiral Caius (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you.  Neil N  talk to me  00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive for the New Year
... Tarc (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Victor Orsatti
After you cast your "delete" vote regarding Victor Orsatti, the article has been substantially updated and revised. Given the extensive coverage Orsatti received in the mainstream press over the years, it appears that he does, in fact, pass WP:GNG. This may or may not cause you to alter your view, but you may want to take a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Post to Jimbo's Page
I disagree in one detail as to your labeling. I don't think that it devolved or evolved into ranting or trolling. The original poster appears to have been a troll. Thank you for hatting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They keep coming back, unfortunately. New thread today. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sig
Thanks for telling me. It looked ok so I didn't know. New improved. -- Green  C  02:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bieber
Is the petition stupid? Yes. Will the White House give any real consideration to the idea of deportation? No. Is it notable? I think yes. This stupid tool the WH provides got it's most reacted to response for this idea about this entertainer. It is worth mentioning. --Onorem (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to template you. 3rr. These are BLP issues that are covered by multiple reliable sources. I won't revert your last edit, but don't hide behind that. --Onorem (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC
If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the  debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at  Talk:Justin Bieber Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Tarc, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Tarc, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint  (talk &#124; ctrb) 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix
I'm curious; what's stopping you from removing the image from the new article? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A lack of faith that such a change would remain for very long. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I guess that makes sense, but then aren't you admitting that there is not consensus to remove the image? If there is no consensus to remove the image, then why do you want to delete the article for using the image, which, as of now, has consensus to remain on Wikipedia? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But really, don't you think that stuff about Hendrix likely being set-up is notable? The biggest rock star in North America and the highest paid performer in the world was likely framed for heroin smuggling. That's encyclopedic, not? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't just tumble off the Wiki-Turnip Truck yesterday y'know, I know how the game is played; "consensus" is determined by who can shout louder and revert more than the other. You created the article to justify the image usage.  I nominated the article for deletion because of both that bad-faith move and the fact that the "event" as it were is worth 1-2 paragraphs, not over-exposed and magnified into a separate article. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have great respect for you as an editor, but have you read 40+ books about Hendrix? The event is quite interesting, and there is a distinct possibility that he was framed. How about this, if I didn't include the mugshot would you still want the article deleted? I really wish that you had participated in the deletion discussions, because as it was, one or two editors might have swayed this so that DDD's non-closure might never have happened. Did you know that Hendrix was again arrested in Toronto when he returned for court? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would still want it deleted. I did give 2 rationales, y'know. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that if the Toronto article is deleted that Doc will just put the image back into the Hendrix article? Isn't it slightly more appropriate where it is now? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, what did you think of Masem and DDD's suggestion to "build-up the story of his drug use" to justify the image? Do you agree with that approach? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as a form of assuming the conclusion, as you're looking to build up an article to support an image rather than writing an article first, then looking around for images to enhance it. I'm content at this point to just see what unfolds over the next week of the AfD, it's only been up for 7 hours and we still has a ways to go. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're dodging the question. What did you think of Masem and DDD's suggestion to "build-up the story of his drug use" to justify the image? Because that's what will happen if the Toronto article is deleted. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs would be helpful. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, its maybe a stretch to say that DDD is on board, but his FFD close says: "I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status." After re-reading it just now it seems that Masem has misinterpreted DDD. As far as Masem pushing for more material devoted to drugs, look here and here. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , can you please clarify this situation. Masem has presented your FFD close as calling for more detail about Hendrix's drug use to justify the image. Is that accurate? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Knox
Just so you know, the subject has been brought up by the user at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC at WP:PUF
There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header that you might find relevant as you have participated in past discussions about the use of pufc. Thanks, -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 14:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Could you please take a look at the latest edits on Amanda Knox by user Overagainst. I will not get involved in that heated discussion again as Overagainst simply is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with at this point as is evident by his remarks on the talk page and at the BLP noticeboard. Atleast take a look so the edits are right and non-biased. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll look. I really hate this topic area, it's just a variant of the missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI honeypot
Much of the thread is banned sockpuppets having a field day. Original poster and pretty much every IP that follows (including 24.149.117.220, but I don't think they're a banned user) is a sock.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, there's quite a bit of nerdrage directed your way. I think there's some crossover to the attack spree on this DRV page, though I don't see what the connection is. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope you aren't including me in that drawer of socks there, Ryulong. :P I do have a regular account, but just don't log into it because I am perfectly content to edit with the limitations of an IP—unless there is a technical reason I need to login or disclose it per Sock puppetry. However, that didn't prevent Verso.Sciolto and ChrisGualtieri from making a big stink about it last month. :/ 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't participate there, but I also edit anonymously from time to time, to experience what the heathen have to put up with. It reminds me to treat IP addresses with more respect, when I find myself slipping. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but if there is a raging ANI fest going on that has to do with socking and IP users, it may not be terribly prudent for a genuinely innocent IP user to wade into it. Collateral fire is unfortunate, but it does happen. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

reverting threads
Please do not revert someone posts without discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.66.194 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparent vandalism does not warrant discussion. You, however, will have to make your case on the talk page as to why a you feel the subject who has won a journalism award is, in fact, not a journalist. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_H._Cameron#Brian_H._Cameron]
Hello Tarc,

You nominated the above page for deletion because you felt that the subject of the article was not notable. I agree that the prior article did a poor job of establishing his notability, but I suggest that the subject, Dr. Cameron, is in fact notable.

I wrote a new version of the article in my Sandbox with the goal of demonstrating that a valid article could, in fact, establish his notability.

The new draft article is here: Draft:Brian_H._Cameron

On the basis of this, I'd like to proceed with a Deletion Review. However, I have two problems that I'd like your help with before I do.

a) I am a fairly novice Wikipedia editor. I'd like to get feedback on whether the page above is a good example of a Wikipedia article, written from an NPOV, with reasonable references, etc.

b) I have a conflict of interest. I know Dr. Cameron and have worked with him quite a bit.  While I have no personal or financial interest in getting his page published, I have been told that my relationship with him is sufficient to qualify for COI.  On that basis, I really shouldn't be making edits on a page about him, much less writing a page.

Could you please look at the article in my sandbox and let me know if (a) you feel that it does, in fact, establish his notability, and (b) if you would oppose my petition to review the deletion of his page? Nickmalik (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just not a notable individual. People skimming the refs may slide across the "interview by CNN" and perk up...for a second, til one realizes it is from CNN's iReport section, i.e. user-submitted articles for CNN to accept or reject. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, CNN is an interesting, general interest media outlet, but Gartner Reports and A&G Magazine, of which there are numerous references, are far more respected than CNN. CNN sells their news reports for advertising.  Gartner sells their reports to corporations for tens of thousands of dollars, based on the promise of fairness, equal treatment, and honest insight.  The two reports cited CLEARLY state the notability of Dr. Cameron and what he has done by creating the first Enterprise Architecture degree program at an American university.  In addition to being the author of over 40 works of juried research and two books?  On that basis alone, I can challenge hundreds of other entries in Wikipedia.


 * You won't reconsider? Nickmalik (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The CNN piece wasn't originated by CNN, that's the point; it is a submission from the public. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of existing Wikipedia bios in a similar situation as this guy, and all could be potentially deleted.  If that were to happen, I couldn't be happier. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted the reference to the iCNN interview. It was superfluous.  The references that remain, to Gartner articles, to articles in A&G magazine, etc, should be sufficient to establish notability.  Do you believe that Gartner citations are insufficient to establish notability?  Nickmalik (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, we seem to be at loggerheads with respect to this article. I'm unclear about your reasons for ignoring the reliable sources that I've provided or your desire to QUICKLY delete the article. You are making the case for non-notability, but I don't know why you would be so passionate about it.

Can we talk in person or at least one-on-one? Perhaps a skype call?

Do you think you can share with me some insight about what's motivating your decisions? I don't believe that you are operating dispassionately with respect to this article. There's passion there, and I'd like to know more about it.

Nickmalik (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I just don't see it as enough, or of significance to the larger world. There's plenty of things that I find personally notable and of some historical significance that get short shrift source-wise and thus don't appear here.  Many elements of the Babylon 5 universe could be covered in more detail, as that was a ground-breaking sci-fi series, but the real world didn't take as much notice of some of its fictional elements as, say, Star Trek.  I virtually created Kallisti MUD, one of the longest-running and popular online RPGs that predated the current graphics-based behemoths like World of Warcraft by about 15 years, but its article was deleted.  That's how it works here; we all make our pitches, then a neutral party, usually an admin, determines the consensus of the discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your candor, Tarc, and I appreciate that the nature of Wikipedia is to focus on things that people should know about. After 4M articles in English, with a  wide skew of articles on popular culture vs more scholarly pursuits, I'm sure that we have reached the point where there are some articles that are just not notable to any one person.  I get that.


 * But why the challenge? Some articles are so clearly not notable that it's an easy call.  A newspaper article writeup about a band coming to town doesn't make that band notable, and a variation on the text-based game "Adventure" that only ran on the Altair PC, and was only played by about a hundred people, is a fairly easy call.


 * On the other hand, Wikipedia has pages for sayings like "not even wrong" and pages for obscure terms in theology and pages for legal concepts that are 100 years out of date. There are even pages for professors who have done zero research since they got their Ph.D. but, because they were cited on a paper written by their advisor, they get a page.  Clearly, someone thought that these items were notable, at some point, and no one challenges them.


 * Yet, you've watched THIS article like a hawk, and the INSTANT it was approved by an administrator, you jumped on it. Why challenge this article that very day?  There's some passion here, and I'd like to understand it.  Have you met the subject and you dislike him?  Do you dislike the work he's done? Nickmalik (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Calm down. Look under Special:Preferences, I have the "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist" option ticked off; when I added the original AfD notice a month or so ago, it automatically added the page to the watchlist, and when it returned to article-space, that was noted.  So in a technical sense, sure, it was "watched like a hawk", but more from automation than determination.  No, I have no connection to the subject, I just don't like barely-notable people using an online encyclopedia like their Linkedin.com profile, which is what I saw and still see here.  Really not much else to say, we'll see how the process plays out from here. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarc, with utmost respect, I must point out that your behavior appears to be a form of Wikilawyering WP:Lawyer. You have ignored the reliable sources and citations of his work that make this person notable (twice), then decided that he is therefore not notable.  You have noticed a press release that he did not produce and assumed that he was gaming the project, which is not true.  You have noted that I am a colleague of the subject, and assumed that I am acting as his agent, which is not true.  NONE of these behaviors are in good faith.


 * You have zero evidence to demonstrate that either I or the subject is operating in anything but good faith, and you are operating outside the spirit of the project to assume otherwise. From where I sit, it appears that you are relying on the letter of the policies rather than the spirit of the policies.  This is a flawed approach, tarc, and sometimes it takes someone new to the scene to see it.


 * What alternative can be pursued other than simply deleting the page? Nickmalik (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request
Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Canvassing, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already voted on the latest BS there, thanks. Random IP trolls are just going to keep bringing up vote after vote til misogyny wins, so, whatever. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Yay starz! Thanks. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert
Hi Tarc, so sorry. Did not mean to delete the other posts. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Due to this revision, you may want to have a look at User_talk:Uyvsdi. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 19:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation edit for SUL usurp
Nothing to see, move along.


 * 1) en.wikibooks.org

Tarc (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is done for you on en.wb, thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your comments here. Sorry, I know you prefer not to hear from IP editors, even though they're actual editors, too. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I know, you're fine. I'm not as much of a d-bag as I used to be, butin the past I attracted a lot (like, a lot a lot) of harassment and such over edits and actions made here.  So it's like an ingrown suspicion. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Ein barnstar fur dich!

 * What a strange picture, all I see is grass and dirt. Tarc (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested.....
In arguing about climate change section given your interest in BLPs and politics etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ick, Monckton, something I've read a fair bit about wrt how he is treated/covered in the Wikipedia, but never delved into. Will try to look today, thx. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Over the top
This comment is a bit too strong. Would you please consider refactoring it to avoid reference to editor's real life doings, and to avoid assumptions of bad faith. Wikipedia is not an I-P battleground. If other editors are baiting, don't fall for it! Jehochman Talk 15:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is rrue though, you know it. But fine, "New Tarc" doesn't turn down redaction requests, there just may be a slight grumble. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I sense that this mess will be heading for arbitration.  A smart editor will be on best behavior under these circumstances. The willingness to strike a comment is a strong sign that you are a reasonable person and could save you a lot of grief. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations at Knox and Kercher articles
Hey, you can't just lift text verbatim from a source, as you did from this NBC news site. Even if you cite the source, you still have to write the prose in your own words. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarc, the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges. The ruling was not made public yet. All other text was modified to make it my own. You CAN NOT change the words in a court order, it must be word for word... talk→   WPPilot   22:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What you posted was a direct copy and paste from nbcnews.com. You aren't fooling anyone here.


 * This edit;
 * The judges also claimed that Kercher was stabbed by “two different knives,” one of which was held by Knox - although it said Sollecito and Guede were equally responsible for the murder.


 * NBC News.com;
 * The judges also concluded that Kercher was stabbed by “two different knives,” one of which was held by Knox - although it said Sollecito and Guede were equally responsible for the murder.


 * That isn't simply a direct quote from a judge, it is the phrasing of the Associated Press reporting on the matter, where you changed a single word. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You sir are rude, and a liar, that was from a early edit, I changed it up but before I could you commenced your personal attack. That was one line, and rather then being rude condescending and incorrect, you could have just fixed it. Take your war to someone else. I have already made it clear that I am not going to edit that document, what do you propose to accomplish by threatening me? Please leave me alone and stop manipulating this its OVER and I have NO DESIRE to edit that space. Please go attack and engage in your name calling on someone else. Thank you and have a wonderful day. talk→   WPPilot   19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't change it until I pointed it out. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh geeeeee, how convenient, as I said and have said over and over and over and over again, I am done in this space. I just don't care to deal with finger pointers that are unable to correct things, and like you have, just make a personal attack out of it. Please just go about your business and KEEP ME OUT OF IT. So that make you a liar as once pointed out I fixed it and you continue to attack me call me names and just be rude. talk→  WPPilot   19:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I called you out because you refused to acknowledge your initial plagiarism, and as other editors have always observed your copyright violations and refusal to own up to them, I'd say that it is you that is at fault here. If you want nothing more to do with the topic, the power is in your hands; stop posting on my talk page, stop posting on the Knox & Kercher article talk pages, and walk away. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never ever been accused of plagiarism, to the best of my recollection. I made a edit, my phone rang, I answered it and spoke for a hour keeping me from completing the edit, and by the time I came back your assult had commenced "you created a war". I tried to fix the issue, yet you still feel obligated to call me a liar, Grow up, had you just fixed it, this would not be a issue. I bet your finger is sore from doing all the pointing. I NEVER refused to acknowledge, as a matter of fact you pointed it out and I fixed it. This is a childish game your playing and I am not interested in playing within your sand box anymore, you can keep the bucket and the shovel and I suggest you build yourself a nice big sand castle .... talk→  WPPilot   19:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Given how much of your edit was copied text, you should not have made the edit in the first place. You should have taken a few moments, summarized it better, then added it.  Not add in a copyright violation then edit the text.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this guy realizes that every revision to a file here is visible and time-stamped, as this initial claim right on this very page reads "the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges. The ruling was not made public yet. All other text was modified to make it my own." Revision as of 18:27, 29 April 2014. This was regarding the initial Revision as of 13:03, 29 April 2014, which was indeed lifted near-word-for-word from the AP. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, with well over 5000 articles contributed to, 26 new Wikis started and over 2000 HIGH quality images that grace this site that I donated, you still feel the need to be insulting. No personal attacks is pretty clear, it does NOT allow you to attack me. You all need to grow up and read: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Clearly you feel the need to have the last word, and civility plays no factor in what you do. talk→  WPPilot   20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The pointing out of a copyright violation is not a personal attack; I have demonstrated exactly how and why your initial edit plagiarized the source. Your initial denial of wrongdoing and subsequent excuse-making ("I WAS ON THE PHONE!!!") only dig yourself deeper into a hole.  I have not filed any complaints anywhere about you, nor do I plan to, I simply reverted your edits to the article and explained why.  The only person that is still keeping this discussion alive is YOU.  If you wish it to stop, then as I said before, drop it and walk away. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So are copyright violations. With 5k+ edits, how could you not have known that was wrong and the right way to do it? That edit was bad, plain and simple. Stop trying to excuse it. You obviously can do better. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the article I did admit that I was premature in hitting save, it should have been preview. Calling someone a LIAR, publicly when the statement is not correct, is a personal attack. I NEVER denied that I SHOULD not have saved that edit, please forgive me as I am only human. It was pointed out and I fixed it, then this battle fest of the two of you (fric and frack) commenced calling me names (LIAR), Do you feel that is acceptable, even considering that once the edit was pointed out I fixed it? Yet you and you editorial pal are tag teaming me, calling me a liar, IN SPITE of the fact that THE SECOND IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, I fixed it. Why are you two so filled with hate? talk→  WPPilot   20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is my last word on the matter. When you said "the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges", that was not a truthful statement.   I'm not the one that has kept this alive; you have.  Feel free to drop it at any time.  As for "hate", there is none here.  My hate is reserved for NY Yankees fans and Montreal Canadiens fans.  And for quiche. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well then thank you for dissecting my words in a manner that remakes it clear you need to pick people apart, does that kind of activity make you feel more worthy? Never the less thank you! and I hope your day is as shitty as the news I just got. BTW Canadiens is spelled "Canadians" (unless that is how they spell it at Plymouth State University) talk→  WPPilot   00:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jesus fucking christ, bro. Hockey, Montreal Canadiens.  Tarc (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined
The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Received & responded, thx for the notifier. :) Tarc (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I sent you some more email. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw it but have had a hectic night/day. Just wanted to let you know it wasn't being ignored.  Will get back tonight.  :) Tarc (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind reverting this please? I don't see it going anywhere productive, and the last thing we need at the end of this all is more personal back-and-forth. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Usually I would do that these days upon request, but sorry, not this time. Born2Cycle is the Scut Farkus of article title/renaming discussions, and sometimes the bully on the block needs his nose bloodied for the greater good.  I won't protest if you or someone (other than him) redacts, but I cannot. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All it does is give the editor another reason to respond and drag more people into a debate that isn't a debate. IMO. Dave Dial (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it will, esp as the creators of the review request begin to realize that their epic, long-winded tirade of a review request didn't win anyone over and was essentially ignored. Let them vent, as Nick is currently. Tarc (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation or disconfirmation needed
Please see WP:AN; at the bottom of the current version, Hafspajen seems to say that you and Viriditas think that a sockpuppet investigation is needed for the Candleabracadabra situation. Could you please go there and offer input? It would help if you'd confirm that you think this, or if you'd say "no, Hafspajen has misunderstood". Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm out for the day, will comment later. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The thread is Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.

Sock
You may be interested in our "new" editor's efforts at Halliburton and its Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tarc!
I at least hope you see the irony of Obama supporters removing this info that I added to the transparency section of the article on Obama's presidency.

A blog entry that I wrote about Obama has had over a quarter million hits. It's at tinyurl dot com/ku9vxug

Crimson marble goldfish (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

DRN Amanda Todd back up
The DRN is back up, go and check it out. Awaiting your response. WP:DRN Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

now that is vintage tarc
. As soon as I saw frosh and cracker I threw up a little in my mouth cuz I've heard that story before, and then you delivered, turning circular refs into a circle jerk. Nicely done. This one's for you: .--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's more fun to be subtle, the payoff is sweeter. Or salty, as it were. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ew! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A useful link and a random TS Elliot quote in the edit summary. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Tood
Can you explain what the hell is actully? --Alejandrocaro35 (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a direct quote, which is why the misspelling is preserved. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage genres discussion
Hi. You're a past editor in the Garbage articles, would you mind giving your input on the latest discussion? Talk:Garbage_(band) --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
<b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  02:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility again

 * Geez, with all these civility barnstars, people are gonna get the wrong idea about me. :) Tarc (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I was going to give you the irony barnstar but I could not find one. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Olive">Chillum</b> 15:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dude, you put me in someone's fan club. That's not very polite. I think you should know me better than that--seriously, wasn't CoM's passive-aggressiveness and barrage of accusations, disruptions, and shows of bad faith not much uncivil than one bad word, or even a bunch of bad words? Drmies (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * CoM and Malleus probably have quite a bit in common when you think back on it. I used to semi-defend the clod at ANI whenever his block appeals inevitably came up, but y'know, following the female novelist category mess and talking with some people who have an outside perspective on Wikipedia's workings, I've done a bit of a course correction. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please Tarc do not resort to name calling. There is nothing added to your point by calling someone a "clod". Personal attacks are against policy and frankly if you have a good point then you can make that point without them.

I know it is not a popular idea with you but it is something that enjoys consensus here. I understand this is a minor insult and not actionable but there has been far too much tolerance of this sort of thing lately so I am speaking out against it. This is something we teach to children and expect from adults. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:Blue">Chillum</b> 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, someone who has been blocked and unblocked ~20-30 times and warred over for years kinda loses any such consideration in my book. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a consideration, it is a community expectation. WP:NPA does not say "unless the person was blocked a bunch". Regardless I have had my say and I will leave you to your editing. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

NRA
Hello. On this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=history (NRA). I ask you give me scheme to publish info about activity of NRA again. And I ask you unblock this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_to_stop_lobbing_for_the_good_of_the_NRA Explain me, what is wrong (I thanked you and I published questions for you - not more). Questions are not sin. By the way. - 37.144.112.60 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC).


 * What you wish to add is already covered, more coherently & neutrally, at Gun politics in the United States and Gun politics in the United States. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not full truth is written. Indicator of fear: some number of users became write not clever things about "opinions" (instead facts and even modern situation around the US president and the NRA with Congress). President says about mental health even (USA has no monopoly on crazy people, when they kill each other almost every day). Restrictions are needed as never. Because situation in 2014 - is the greatest trouble on the national level. President said in such style. Users, related to the NRA, are afraid the truth (attention of a large number of people (via article of Wikipedia). Other materials can be useful for the aims of the encyclopedia. I wish add such materials. - 37.144.112.60 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Hello Tarc. Here does not exist the modern information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/10/obama-america-should-be-ashamed-of-gun-violence/ . When almost trouble on the national level: this info can be represented in the article (highest opinion and facts in the same time (2014 year - modern info). Head of the state says, not any user of Wikipedia. Any defender of the NRA has no grounds to make roll back, in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia (it is the independent encyclopedia for facts and knowledge - not for the NRA). Thanks! - 95.29.85.128 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
 * I've already given you the sections of the existing article that detail the NRA's involvement in American politics. I'm sorry, but you do not even have a strong grasp on the English language; your chances of contributing actually usable material to this project at the moment are a bit low.  Why are you so interested in American gun politics anyways?  Shouldn't you be worrying about what your Dear Leader is up to these days? Tarc (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When 2 states have bad relations temporarily (Ukraine), ordinary citizens of Russia have respect to fate of the US citizens (we all people). We respect lives of any citizens. Not propaganda (motivation inside self). 95.27.125.172 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Hello Tarc. Do you know why Hermann Göring was fat? World history. - 95.29.140.9 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Semi-protect your user talk from these incoming nastygrams? You've been wearing big boy pants since birth, so doubtless not needed. Offer's still there, if you want it. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, it seems to be winding down, thanks though. I'm not even sure what the Göring comment was supposed to be getting at. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked, because English Wikipedia does not contain such interesting detail: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%E5%F0%E8%ED%E3,_%C3%E5%F0%EC%E0%ED_%C2%E8%EB%FC%E3%E5%EB%FC%EC#.D0.92_.D0.BD.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.82.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B9_.D0.BF.D0.B0.D1.80.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.B8._.D0.A0.D1.83.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8C_.D0.A1.D0.90 :

"В результате попадания пули в район паха, у Геринга был нарушен обмен веществ, и он стал набирать вес, ставший его отличительной чертой в комиксах СССР и не только.[5]" =

"As a result, getting a bullet in the groin area, Goering was disturbed metabolism, and he began to gain weight, which has become his hallmark in the comics of the USSR and elsewhere.[5]" (Google bot)

I have specified. Maybe it is in other related articles English Wikipedia (Nazism). Your colleague thought something bad, but it is the sharing of knowledge. - 95.29.83.135 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Hello Tarc. Jimbo Wales does not wish be related to this dangerous issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Petition_to_get_attention_of_the_US_government_and_Obama Explanation: "You do not wish understand me. Speech of Obama - facts independently of anything (it is part of his biography). If you do not wish put this speech in articles, related to gun laws, need put the speech of Obama in the article about Obama. If Julia Roberts will say something - also facts (example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama I ask you put the speech of Obama in his biography. I can not do it self (the article has lock). Or you can put his speech in the article about the NRA or about the Congress. Or in related to gun laws articles. Big selection.". Please, add this information: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/10/obama-says-america-should-be-ashamed-its-gun-laws/ in the biography of Obama. President will be happy as never, he will respect you personally. The US president will respect you personally !!!!!!!!!! Iron reality. If troubles from "The craziest man on Earth", this craziest man will sit in prison. You will under protection of Obama. Because you will give help for Obama. - 95.29.141.133 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Is this intended for use in Haiku?
 * Not full truth
 * is written.
 * Indicator of fear


 * Iron reality
 * If troubles from
 * The craziest man

I was just wondering (those are quotes from the IP above). So, to proceed in similar vein;

Not sure ~ if intended ~ this was

IP edits ~ Editnotice mentions ~ not welcome

Scansion rules ~ Demiurge maybe ~ doesn't get

OK nvm, back to doge memes then. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, this user's kinda gone off the deep end...though getting some dap from the president himself would be pretty cool. I once got a personally signed thank-you card from Howard Dean for volunteering a bit in '04.  That and talking to Cameron Kerry when his brother was campaigning are my high-water political achievements. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarc. I say about normal things. Important part of the biography of the US president - must be represented in the article about Obama. If you does not wish do it self, I ask remove lock from the article and I will integrate the info personally. 1 hour give me. Not will grammatical mistakes (citations). Obama said about many important things in the speech (with his point of view - and it is his biography). Thank you. I hope that rules of Wikipedia do not depend of any NRA. My point of view: "The craziest man on Earth must sit in prison long time ago" (and common sense says that he not good man, almost offender) - 95.27.100.226 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Dear Tarc, hello. Tell me truth - if not difficultly. Fear to get shot? The NRA members can be crazy and they simply walks on streets of the US. With gun. Millions of crazy people. Like them leader almost. The craziest man on Earth. And else: Obama uses double standarts (if he is sure that exists the corruption, bad senators must sit in prison). Logically !!! - 37.144.108.243 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC).


 * I am an Obama voter and also a gun owner. Wrap your brain around that one. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Where I live is full of Obama voters who also own guns. Nothing unusual about that, but it's probably news to the anon. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize that you went through a significant amount of trouble defending my privilege of speaking freely on Jimmy Wales' Talk page. I commend you for this morally-upstanding effort. - Spotting ToU (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, though I probably won't be able to pull off another 25 reverts in 24 hours on one of the most-watched talkpages of the project. :) If someone has a hissy fit again, I'll just post yoour comment as my own, with attribution.  Let em stew on that. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Tutelary (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gone on long enough, I think. I've got no opinion re: who is right. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to make trouble, but...
Smallbones seems to think that I am a "banned" user, in a clumsy manner similar to his personal (unproven) vendetta against User:Spotting ToU that I observed last week. You may be amused by stepping in again, but I certainly wouldn't want you to jeopardize your good standing on Wikipedia. - The Rewarder (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * These boys will have their wagons fixed soon, no worry. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarc, unlike last time I won't be aiding in this. I unfortunately side with Smallbones and Hell in a bucket (for once) just because this seems like a fairly obvious one. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite all right. Consider this a trial balloon to see how far these little defenders of the crown will go. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is If I may..... Thank you.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 20:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom
[] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban issue
As you may recall, last October you and I and some others were issued this topic ban. On ANI now, an editor is accused of the very things we were accused of, but almost no one there thinks that it's ban-worthy. I don't see how something that was ban-worthy a year ago no longer is. Please check this out on ANI and comment, if you want to. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, this is a little complex, and my prohibition isn't quite the same as the others. I wasn't actually topic-banned for the comment itself; they got me after the fact (when I was about to skate scott-free) for admitting it was all a ruse.  I regret the methods, as I did not take in to account that real people would or could be hurt by my actions, but the point still remains that the Arbitration Committee is ill-equipped to deal with editors who advocate a discriminatory point-of-view in an otherwise civil manner.  I'll comment over there in a moment, though I wonder if the nit-pickers and the word-parsers may consider an ANI tread about an editor in trouble at a trangender page to be itself a topic ban violation.  They're already out for blood as it is with the new Arbcom case looming. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On reflection, you're best off not to comment. Someone's trying to get me blocked for my complaints about this double-standard hypocrisy. Keep yourself safe from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was rather inspired to bring a shotgun to the butter-knife party, as it were. So, we'll see what happens now. Tarc (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rogereeny. It kind of looks like nothing will happen to that user this time, but now he's on notice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much for your strong condemnation of Int21h's apparent bigotry. I really appreciate that. And it is nice to see that someone who said the things that you said can rethink and reevaluate their appropriateness (even though it was a prank I understand). Yworo (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yw. And it wasn't a prank per se, i.e. it wasn't just for kicks; I thought it'd be a good idea to show how much the so-called leadership of the project at times misses the actual problem and focuses on trivial things.  Didn't work out so well overall. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, really the problem is: there is no leadership at all. Admins are not leaders, they are bureaucrats, many willfully or unintentionally not really aware of BLP issues and how expressions of bigotry should be handled under it. And then there are the Arbitrators, who seem to have a better grasp of BLP issues, but who shirk the responsibility to be more aggressive in upholding these principles, leaving it to the admins, many of whom lack the sensitivity, knowledge, or will to do the enforcing left to them by Arb. A kind of circular reasoning where "free speech" trumps our clearly defined BLP policy, simply because admins don't or won't understand just what BLP is supposed to be restricting outside article space. Yworo (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, Int21h's defense is that ArbCom is not a valid authority! Talk about shooting oneself in the foot! Yworo (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn
Tarc, the wording you reverted at Zoe Quinn were the result of previous consensus (that you can read here and here, as the reliability of the references is disputed for the sentence you have now re-introduced. If you want to change the previous consensus you should first discuss it at the talk page and address the issues that have been raised there. Diego (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Zoe Quinn was harassed. Not reportedly harassed.  Not a claim of being harassed.  Plain ol' h-a-r-r-a-s-s-e-d.  If our article does not reflect that reality, then the article will be corrected. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * While I fully agree Zoe was harassed, in the wikipedia article that isn't the standard. The standard is verifiably harassed and with the conflicting sources and chaining of sources it's difficult to meet that standard. If you have a cogent source based argument I for one would love to see it at the talk page. &#32;SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * These angry video game nerds are some precious piece of work. And we wonder why there's a gender gap in the project. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's twice now you've called me an angry video game nerd and it's starting to grate. Please read the civility policy and avoid insulting editors. &#32;SPACKlick (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I said "these" as in "others not you"; if I meant you I would have said "you". I don't agree with your reversion, but at least it was for a policy-based reason.  Chillax. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * [EC] Irrespective of any of the above, my revert was in error. See the talk page for detail but the sources and consensus I was referring to was to the 2013 harassment not the 2014.&#32;SPACKlick (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your bias is showing. Starly396 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been asked to cease and desist with your aggressive behavior on Zoe Quinn repeatedly. Please stop accusing others of being misogynistic or otherwise attacking users and failing to assume good faith. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I initially reverted both of the above knucklehead comments, then restored them, because looking back at this, I haven't (til a few minutes ago) even talked about Zoe Quinn for 2 days. What on earth are you griping about NOW? Tarc (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread
The pointless thread that CMDC opened may now be closed but I still want a diff from you. You have a habit of making assertions and failing to support them when asked: now put up or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I already answered; it is the demeanor and attitude of your comments in that thread. The snide remark about the gender-gap mailing list and meatpuppets, the dickish "excluding dissenting males" line, and the like, deriding Carol as a "cheerleader" and "shit stirrer".  Are you as bad as Corbett and his Cro-Magnon (we used to say "Neanderthal" at times like this, but it turns out those may have been kinda smart folk after all) "militant feminism" attitude?  No.  But you come across as being only a few shades above that. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (Actually those particular kinda smart ones were from Gibraltar, which may make a difference.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was gonig to jokingly suggest that our ol buddy Prioryman get started on a Neanderthals of Gibraltar article, but...he already did. Oy vey. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Online gambling companies all of whose server infrastructure is located deep within the Rock of Gibraltar is actually a thing, but a rather unwieldy title and maybe people would want sources as opposed to knowledge :) There was also the windowsills one, I forget where or if that exists now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So, no diff then? Just micro-quotes taken out of context. Bloody useless. FWIW, I'll restate that I do accept that there is a gender gap and have never suggested otherwise. I think that you need to attend a basic class in English comprehension. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, stop with the "OMG GIMME DIFF" Wiki-meme. I explained in plain ol' English what part of your atrocious, arguably sexist, commentary I found fault with.  Also note that the "you need language comprehension" snipe is running afoul of WP:NPA.  If you wish to be allowed a continued presence on my talk page, clean your mouth up a bit. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Take me to ANI for the alleged NPA breach. Provide a diff for your continued unattributable accusations or apologise. And if you ban me from here, as is your right, then I'll take you to ANI myself for making those unsubstantiated allegations. You seem unable to correctly read what I have said even though I use pretty simple language, and that gives me just cause to question your competence. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already told you exactly what you said and exactly why it is wrong, both here and in the AN/I threads. (see the comment above that begins with, strangely enough, "I already answered..."). I'm sorry if you're unable to understand that. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've taken it to a new thread at ANI. I'm not going to tolerate people misrepresenting me in this way, especially when Cmdc has a tendency of picking up on such rubbish and repeating it ad infinitum. You're experienced here, so I'll forego the usual ANI notification template. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:HARM
I don't understand why everybody overwhelming embraces WP:HARM, but then refuses to engage in any constructive conversation about how to make it a disclosed established policy/guideline. On the talk page of BLP somebody wrote, BLP is "up there" as major rule because we care about humanity and do not wish to harm living, conscious souls by our actions, yet there is no documentation that easily identifies a policy that prolifically distributed information that further increases victimization or causes life endangerment through wikipedia inclusion as grounds for removal of material. Not just about this topic, but I'm sure it comes up every single day. Its written about, I want to include it! That seems to be exactly what WP:HARM is, and it clearly states on the page that it is rejected. If current consensus is that Wikipedia embraces it, why is it impossible to engage in constructive discussion in regards to how to incorporate it. ALL the current guidelines support inclusion of vicitms, and consideres victimization notable and worthy of inclusion.MeropeRiddle (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A decision was made, above your head, that the necessity of discretion outweighs the necessity of having a Wikipedia article on this person at this time. In case you forgot, this is an encyclopedia.  Not a social media forum, not a blog, and not a place to right the world's great wrongs.  Pick a topic you like and either write about it or ensure that existing content is up to par, and accept that sometimes rules are ignored for the sake of project improvement; at this time, the project is improved by the lack of attention given to this individual. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on now Tarc
This was wholly unnecessary and quite uncivil. Or, if it is true what you said about Eric, it might as well be true about you also. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Corbett is the poster child for civility being ignored in this project because of the alleged value of "content contributors", you know that as well as I. Tell me what would happen if an editor 6 months in to their Wikipedia editing said to another "The best way to avoid being called a cunt is to stop acting like one" ? Tarc (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Loaded question. To use your own words, you know as well as I do that you misrepresent the context. Eric may well be the poster child for that, but that doesn't mean he was justifiably put on that poster. Besides, civility is not being ignored. Us having, to take an example related to another remark you made (about Tutelary), editors who allegedly commit BLP violations doesn't mean the BLP is being ignored. Eric's block record proves that not everyone "ignores" civility in the way that you construe civility. Let me put something else to you: what do you hope to achieve by bringing him up in a wholly unrelated discussion? How is that not baiting, taunting? You don't have to answer that, and you know I'm not going to block you for it or anything like that. Case study: your remark was uncivil, in my opinion, and I don't block you for it. Did I ignore civility? Ich don't think so. But it's possible someone could have blocked you for it, or for earlier remarks, and that you weren't is perhaps also the result of your many other useful contributions. Pot, kettle. If either of you is a pot or a kettle, which I don't think you are. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, fine. I shall stop name-dropping the bogeyman in question, unless it is a thread in which is is explicitly involved or the subject of.  Sound good? Tarc (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you not bring him up at all (I don't think you all edit the same articles...), but this would be a good start, yes. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Tarc, I sometimes take a look at the last 500 contribs of some of these people and I'll see lots of arm-wrestling, complaining and pontificating and *&%*%# all content addition or improvement, and I think, how is this person helping build an encyclopedia? The reams of comments at dispute resolution pages serve to drive off folks who have legitimate complaints as well as it works like filibustering a bit. For instance, what percentage of yours was Faithful to our First Pillar? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI hat
Like you said "That's about all there it to this tangent; ..." The key word is tangent. I hatted hoping to keep the discussion focused on Specifico & Carol. Oh well. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I know, and you're right in a way, but at the same time that was a rather ugly insinuated threat by Sitush to do pretty much what we're talking about banning Specifico for that I couldn't let it slide without rebuttal. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sitush has hounded me to mostly administrative situations to trash me for a) not doing everything he's told me I should or should not do and b) not keeping my editing to knitting or whatever it is he thinks well behaved females should be allowed to edit. Happily, I'm too exhausted from having to take four buses to comment... Nap time... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we know what they say about well-behaved women. :) Tarc (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just came across this a moment ago; Honesty Comic. Fitting, for some. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Came here because I saw the Drmies comment about a barnstar. Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap. One day, I'll post the link to your website on WP and then everyone will understand. Feel free to delete, Tarc. I'm sure you will. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete? Oh no brah, not at all; you're "just being honest", it's "how you are".  Why would I deprive the universe of such precious nuggets of wisdom?  I'd be a thief and a hoarder.  No no no no. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a clue what "brah" means but, for the record, I knit. And I knit well. In fact, if Carol wants to take me on in a knitting contest then I'm game. (I can't sew much, though: buttons on shirts and the odd hem is about my limit). - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's what the cool kids say when they want to say something cooler than bro. I try to stay current. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
There ya go. Maybe having a kitten will soften you up some. Remember to feed it and make it go potty. Do not eat the kitten.

Drmies (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>


 * Aww, how cute. But...just a nibble?  That ear looks tasty. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ears are the best. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Koichi Aoyagi
I am getting really fed up with the tone and combativeness of the person who nominated this page for deletion. His constant replying to any comments and his attempts to insult me at every turn are getting really frustrating. I have used a lot of restraint in not saying how I fully feel, but the whole thing is getting really frustrating. The fact that the keeping of the articles on Elder Madsen and Elder Funk have both been ignored is frustrating. Also, the total double standard of attacking the multi-sourced and documented article on Elder Aoyagi, while ignoring articles on members of state Houses of Representatives, despite that fact that any realistic reading o the guidelines about bishop should clearly allow general authorities to have their articles kept, is just frustrating me. I am trying to avoid an all out fight, but the whole situation is getting trying. I just feel frustrated by this whole episode.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * He can get a little hard and heavy with the replies, but at the same time this Vojen editor is basically lying with these massive Wall o' Text posts of blogs and church newspapers everywhere as well so a little frustration is understandable. Actual church leaders, sure, we should have articles on all of them.  But these people are basically administrators or middle management. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Gun Troll
The troll has been given the discretionary sanctions warning. Any further NPOV posts can be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I woulda just tossed em on WP:NOTHERE grounds, as I don't see this individual doing anything productive. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush
You gave a strident opinion on this. From your latter posts it's apparent that you hadn't read the post he was responding to. You also don't know the deeper context. But I don't feel an obligation to fill in you in either. That's life on WP: inconsistent. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is accurate, then Sitush is no better than vermin in my eye. There is no place for that here at all. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (That was unfortunate [Post-note edit: the "That" in the foregoing was a post by Nyttend which has now been removed].). I dropped out of WP for a few months in 2013. When I came back there was a new Tarc (I saw you posting something about regretting how you'd been before). I don't know what happened, but the new Tarc was a pretty savvy person that generally seemed to be saying reasonable stuff that I generally couldn't disagree with. But this is the old Tarc: shoot first, think later. There's more going on between these 2 than you have researched. But more importantly, this "vermin" is keeping a very important part of WP NPOV sane. Literally. From your (US) perspective, maybe you don't regard Indo-Pak articles as that important. But they are, and WMF have done their best to f*** up this area by the way. You really do underestimate the global importance of his WP contribution. (Maybe if he did a few video games that might change.) I've seen you in conflict with him on gender/ civility etc but, from what I've seen you give the impression of thinking that that is his main importance to WP. It isn't, but perhaps you con't care, which is fair enough. DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know, sometimes I slip back into old mode. It happens, but even at my old, bad worst I never threatened on-wiki to point a gun at someone I was having an argument with.  I've had just way too many run-ins with this guy over the last month; it is bringing out the worst in me and it has left a very unpleasant aftertaste that I have rarely felt from  any person, much less one just after online only interaction.  The way he speaks to Carlolmooredc is just ugly and crass.  I don't have the slightest knowledge about his work in Indo-Pak areas; if he's doing some sort of good work there then it is a shame that they will lose out.  But this other stuff is just showing a very bad and very unhinged side. Tarc (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush-Carol interaction ban
You should know Carol signaled her support for a mutual interaction ban with Sitush. While I understand you do not consider that the best sanction, perhaps it would be good to signal your acquiescence to such a result given that it seems to be the only option that stands a chance at the moment.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That was before his roughest, toughest, rootinest, shootinest Yosemite Sam meltdown. If he's left the building, I'd consider it null & void.  Never liked the very concept of IBans anyways. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Response
Hi Tarc

Could you kindly respond to the points I have made regarding the inclusion of the Escapist DDoS on the Talk:Gamergate controversy talk page? In my edit comment I asked for a response to what I had written on the talk page in case of reversion. While you did give reasons for reversion in your edit comments, these did not address the points I had made on the talk page (or if they did, I have failed to understand them and apologise). According to WP:EW, reversions should be addressed on the talk page in case of dispute, so as someone who reverted the edit twice it would be highly useful to have a rebuttal from you. My apologies if I have come across as hostile or overzealous in any way. Bosstopher (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI
You really pushed someone's button there. He will not stop removing the comment, citing a policy he was scolded over because he thinks it fits the criteria or your comment, too.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone had quite the tantrum while I was sound asleep. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At least you weren't scolded by Jimbo for what you said on the talk page.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He's been pontificating about this via Twitter, too. I dunno, sometimes he gets too Judgement of Solomon-ish for my liking when he delves into on-project disputes.  Not every side in a debate is equal. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I heard it once said that a person can best be judged not by the quality of their friends by by the nature of their enemies! ;-)   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy
Tarc, it appears you've surpassed WP:3RR at Gamergate. Please reverse your last revert so we can avoid having to give out blocks or re-protect the article.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As I just noted on your talk page, the most recent one, i.e. #4, was to remove a broken image link. I don't think technical fixes count towards 3RR. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, they do count, but point taken; self reverting isn't going to be helpful. Just resist the urge to revert there any further. Obviously the real issue isn't any one person hitting the revert button, it's half a dozen editors reverting each other and clouding the issue. No one wants to increase protection or see positive editors blocked, but that's what's going to happen if things progress as they are.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Then can you or another talk page stalker take care of stuff like this ? Idiom abuse is something they wean kids off of by middle school. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like this has been taken care of.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

 * Referring specifically to Gamergate controversy and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

TM
I think it's multiple reasons, number one is the BLP violation committed right after coming off a 24 hour BLP violation block, the user posted a link to an attack site, saying "I know we can't use this, but...", it was subsequently oversighted - I saw the edit just before it was oversighted, and it was definitely a BLP vio; second is prolly the ANI discussion - it's very clear the user was not here to build the encyclopedia and was being disruptive, continually violating BLP. But then, the blocking admin would know best. Dreadstar ☥   20:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, I saw the link too, and followed some of the links from that one. It's all the same junk that Quinn's been subject to for a month or so now.  Philknight seems to think he's somewhat redeemable though, given the "you don't have to consult me if you unblock" message, so I guess we'll see what happens. Tarc (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, successfully nominating a page to be protected from IP editing, "opinionating on stuff" [sic] (in ref to ANI discussion of HiLo48), and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice
Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, successfully nominating a page to be protected from IP editing, "opinionating on stuff" [sic] (in ref to ANI discussion of HiLo48), and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Chicago8.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chicago8.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Purely coincidental, I'm sure. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tarc, Kelly has been engaging in these "revenge" file deletions for several years now, against multiple users. If there's anything we can do, please let me know, as I'm really sick of it. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I left him a final warning here. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yik Yak
Why did you open an ANI case, you kept on adding in Erodr and it has nothing to do with Yik Yak, please settle qualms in talk pages not through ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qjndakdnakdnad (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We tried that, and you ignored it. Erodr is a social media app aimed at college students, and Yik Yak is a social media app aimed at college students.  Therefore, listing that in the "see also" section is appropriate. Tarc (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No you had no discussion with me. Upon explanation the Erodr link can stand, but it should be made clear why it is being linked. Their is no mention of Erodr in the actual article. Try not to escalate to ANI in the future mate. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qjndakdnakdnad (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When dealing with an obviously incompetent editor, I will escalate matters as I see fit. Walk away from this topic area, otherwise you are likely heading towards a block. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me, I noticed you are reverting other editors' edits involving Maskerade and blaming it on me? Maskerade has more downloads than Erodr even and is more similar to Yik Yak than Erodr. Why do you insist on not allowing it to be cross-linked. It seems you have either a vested interest in Yik Yak or Erodr. I will escalate this matter if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qjndakdnakdnad (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy closed
An arbitration case with regards to the Banning Policy, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee,  → Call me  Hahc  21  17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

A kitten for you!
Thanks for being here to help Wikipedia. :)

Batreeqah ( Talk ) ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Batreeqah&project=en.wikipedia 02:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

List of family relations in American football
Tarc, thank you for adding several reliable sources to this article. There remain, however, several entries that are sourced solely to other Wikipedia articles, which in turn have no reliable sources for the family relationship(s) asserted. I will take your suggestion and attempt to source them myself, notwithstanding the unsourced content warnings embedded in the hidden text of the page.

Please note, however, that I have also restored and revised the element of the hidden text warnings which you deleted. WP:WPNOTRS specifically provides "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." One can only assume this applies with even greater force when the cross-referenced Wikipedia article likewise does not cite a reliable source for the asserted facts about a living person. Accordingly, I have revised the hidden text warnings to include a spefic reference to WP:WPNOTRS. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive for the Now
... Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust
my opinions on such decisions are clear. Collect (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Er, what? Tarc (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relating to ArbCom topic bans from a single user talk page as being quite weird in esse.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A bit like getting into a fender bender, then being barred from driving down that particular street. What can ya do, it's the law of the wiki-land, for now. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection?
Err, wanna semiprotect this for a bit? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, that'd probably be a good idea for a bit, thanks. Between the pro-Gamergate aggressors and the rapper bio I brought to AfD last night, I think the Tarc Fan Club mailbox is overflowing. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright - gave it 3 months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rockin', thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, unfortunately I've got a fan club that is no doubt watching for any toes out of line wrt this affair. Participating in an admin noticeboard thread where I'm not primarily involved may be a grey area. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Comments about others
Please stop commenting about others on the article talk page as you did here, it violates the expected standards of behavior and exposes you to possible sanctions pwer General sanctions/Gamergate. If you want to talk about others, take it to a noticeboard and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar ☥   02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined
An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to bug you...
But could you point me to where that consensus was reached? I can't find it on the talk page. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Quinn's jilted ex-boyfriend made demonstrably false accusations of impropriety, so that is who we characterize his claims. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that some (read: most if not all) of his claims were mere speculation, but how does that warrant labeling all allegations against Zoe as false? The allegations are coming from her detractors, not him. Skeletos (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * He made false allegations of impropriety in a blog rant, others took that ball and ran with it. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Misclick
You were reverting the wrong thing here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Torga took care of it but he's probably going to restore what he wanted to revert soon enough.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, it's getting confusing at the moment, our creaky mediawiki software isn't meant to handle high-speed vandalism like his. We'll clear it up one way or another. Tarc (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Retartist/8chanstuff
I know I'm just a WP:SPA, but I noticed the User_talk:Retartist/8chanstuff page may have some BLP issues (specifically the claim that has the word 'illegally' in it.) Not sure if this is something I should take to WP:BLPN or if I'm just tilting at windmills here. — Strongjam (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Decided to go ahead with WP:BLPN report, no point in wasting time. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA request (banning policy)
I have initiated a request regarding your administrative noticeboard ban at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.  Konveyor   Belt   19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear talk page stalkers: short break
What is truly ironic about all the Gamergate stuff is that a few years ago, I probably would have been a natural ally of theirs. I, however, evolved, into a stance that harassing women on the internet is very much not OK, but I still love gaming itself. As such, I will be delving into new adventures for a few days, and time here will be spotty. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some misguided 'gamerz' that fall into the #GG category, but the vast majority of people doing the harassing of women and using Gamergate as a forum are people from the 'Men's Rights' advocacy groups. Add in some straggling Freepers that have glommed on, throw in 8chan/4chan/b/ trolls, and that's the 'movement' in a nutshell. Real gamers don't give a shit about the crap being pushed by those people. They know that sales drive the video game industry, and that developers are going to cater to what sells, not some PC version of a game. Not that I disagree with some of the points made by the women gamers, they are correct in many of their complaints. But for Christ's sake, look at the adult film industry, and other portrayals of women in graphic imagery. Puhhh, as if game developers and the industry are all of a sudden going to stop giving people what they want. They would just lose $$money$$ to indie outlets. In other words, the whole thing is stupid beyond belief and just a reason for some sexually frustrated males to attack women for daring to not want to fuck them. Dave Dial (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yea, I logged into Twitter a moment ago and saw "99+" in the notifications; the neckbeards are having a field day. It's a shame for them that I'm not actually concerned with thier point of view.  The only reason I became involved in the GG article in the first place was the BLP concerns regarding Quinn. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Auerbach
— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think things may have been flubbed regarding how this guy was handled. Let's chalk it up as a learning experience and move on. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * People have told him to post things on the ArbCom page and ANI now because I called his message a threat initially. Even though I have just remembered that you are forbidden from even doing anything at ANI now.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ANI thing was my fault. Thought I was being friendly to him, realize it was a mistake now and I should have just pointed him to WP:EA for advice from more experienced editors. I apologize. I suggested to him that the best way forward was for you to retract the 'threatening' comment and that you two just go your separate ways. Other then that I'm not going to inject myself into this any more. Clearly I'm over my head. Again, I really do apologize, I realize both you and Tarc have been made targets and I have a lot of appreciation for you both. — Strongjam (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Arbcom
Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:
 * Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 717 words, so is over the limit. I see several statements are over, and I am contacting anyone who is over 500. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Ubuntu'; color: gray; background-color: blue;">DSA510  </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Ubuntu'; color: Red">Pls No H8</SPAN> 21:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you gettin on about? I've made 7 (now 8) edits all weekend, only 2 of which were Gamergate-related.  Weekends is sports time for me.  GO PATS! Tarc (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like this resolved itself overnight. I like those ANIs.  Anyways, for any involved types that are talk page watching here, I have no desire to wade into the carping and cat-calling of this ANI threat.  Yes, I have tweeted to Quinn and others occasionally, because I think in the midst of the hundreds of tweets they get per day describing ways they will be raped and murdered, that they might like to hear some positive messages for a change.  Also that they can at least count on their respective Wikipedia articles being free of GG harassment, bias, and slanted writing.  If the pro-GG folks want to try to make hay out of me having empathy with an abuse victim, then, whatever. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving
Even to Gamergaters. :)

I shall probably not be back til Sunday, too much turkey and football this long weekend. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Cute and naughty when it needs to be :-)

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>


 * Back a little early, lazy Friday. Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OMGLOL
"Literally Who," LOLLERSKATES so funny! Because Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism, not juvenile trolling and petty bullshit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You might have to explain why you did it a bit more clearly. Took me bit to realize it was just a stupid literally who joke and I wouldn't expect the arbs to be aware of it. — Strongjam (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Just though tit was some new editor who was a bit inattentive to detail. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a really, really stupid Gamergate meme, referring to the three primary targets as "Literally Who" 1/2/3 — dehumanizing the victims of their trolling and harassment. I feel like I'm losing brain cells even talking about it, it's that incredibly awful. If that person's protected edit had come into play, the article would have said "Quinn [who?]" and somewhere in the bottom of the Internet's barrel, there would be sniggers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the term "LW" to try and get people to stop talking about them? --<SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Ubuntu'; color: gray; background-color: blue;">DSA510  </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Ubuntu'; color: Red">Pls No Bully</SPAN> 23:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was it hasn't worked. As evidenced by the phrase being used so much that it's has an acronym. Also, be careful, you are topic banned and that extends to the talk pages. I don't think this is edit worth raising a stink over though. — Strongjam (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed
Regarding a clarification which related to you (Banning Policy case), the arbitrators who commented were in agreement that the edit in question violates the remedy. You can view the archived copy of the request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
 * Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
 * The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
 * Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Idea
See Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting but not sure how it'd work in practical terms. I'll look more later, time to gear up for football. :) Tarc (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Discussion of interest to you
You were a discussant at Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier which (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses. The article has since been recreated through the WP:AFC process and a speedy deletion was contested. Thus, I call your attention to Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)